And by the way, when a christian site conveniently forget the serious arguments against christiannity, or pretends that there’s some sort of scholar agreement about a fact (for instance that the gospels were written around Jesus lifetime) when the scholar’s agreement is exactly the contrary, I call that, at the very least, deluding people. And I would more exactly say lying. And this really doesn’t give a positive opinion about the christian apologists.
Monty: its in there somewhere.
From what I heard, satan goes up to Heaven to accuse christians.
Someone with the verse?
All right, I’m sorry that I snipped you wrong. I didn’t think I was; that was certainly the way I read it. But I was going fast. (And I do, in fact, know Christians who were raised as atheists.)
The thing is, I get the definite feeling that you have no interest in listening to what I have to say, so why should I bother with writing pages worth of my soul out for you? I’m a busy mom. Boards aren’t very good vehicles for this kind of serious discussion anyway, in my experience.
Why have I picked this faith? Because it has worked for me. You have to make up your mind sometime, and I have, and I’m sticking to it. The longer I stay in my faith, the better it works, and the more confirmation I receive of its truth. Maybe another one would work too–so what? This one works best. I can’t experiment my whole life–I’d never get anything done.
(And FTR, my family has always encouraged interest in other faiths. In college, I was stunned to discover that I was by far the most knowledgable about world religions in my classes–and we were comparative lit. majors.)
You simply can’t apply scientific protocols to religion (or a few other things–most social ‘sciences’ come to mind). Science is not the best method to use for everything. People of faith often have no problem with this; athiests tend to have conniption fits. That’s just how it is. Sorry.
It’s interesting because Greenleaf was considered to be the premiere authority on legal evidence, and he was challenged to consider the evidence for the resurrection. Although he tried to disprove the resurrection, he was compelled – by the rules of legal evidence – to change his mind.
Your reckless paraphrase really doesn’t do his account justice. It wasn’t just that the martyred disciples died for their belief. Rather, they claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Greenleaf considered it extremely unlikely that all these people would let themselves be tortured and die for something that they knew to be false – especially in light of their previous cowardice.
Greenleaf was a renowned expert in the field of evidence, and he was hostile to the Christian claim. If anyone could shoot a fatal hole in the legal case for the resurrection, he could – but he didn’t, and the evidence forced him to change his mind.
Fabulous, he’s an authority on legal evidence and not on historical matters. That he read the Bible and then said that the evidence contained within was sufficient to prove the resurrection, indeed, amounts to nothing more than saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so. Nevermind the inaccuracies in the link, such as the age of the Gospels.
I think it does. Again, he based it on the assumption that the Bible was true (the evidence) and written by eyewitnesses, when the Catholic position says quite the opposite about the age of the Gospels.
Who said they knew it to be false? If the accounts are accurate, and that alone could be fodder for much debate, plenty of people have died for what they believed - sometimes in war, sometimes by their own hand. I don’t see what makes the Christian version special.
Who is really interested in the legal case for it? I didn’t realize we were having a trial. And, like I said, it seems to me that in order for his opinion to follow, he has to start with the assumption that the Bible is a valid source of accurate history - that’s putting the cart before the horse, no?
I’m not an american, so I’ve no chance to know him. But is Greenleaf famous. Do you say that he was a premiere authority because you know that as a fact, or because the cite you gave claims so?
Though it isn’t very important. His arguments are more important than his titles. But if he isn’t who he claims to be, the text would lose much of its credibility
Same question : do you know that for a fact or do you believe it only because this page claims it so?
[QUOTE]
[Although he tried to disprove the resurrection, he was compelled – by the rules of legal evidence – to change his mind.
[QUOTE]
Not even close to any rule of legal evidence I ever heard of.
[QUOTE]
[Your reckless paraphrase really doesn’t do his account justice. It wasn’t just that the martyred disciples died for their belief. Rather, they claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Greenleaf considered it extremely unlikely that all these people would let themselves be tortured and die for something that they knew to be false – especially in light of their previous cowardice…
[QUOTE]
So, let’s apply some basic rules of evidence. We have documents claiming that X, Y and Z have been killed for having given a testimony of an event they witnessed. The documents, I suppose are the Acts.
What is this document greenleaf presents? A 2000 years old document which has been copied and copied again. How can we know he describe real events and that it’s not a forgery? We can’t. What evidence Greenleaf gives for its authenticity? None.
Go to court with a paper which is a copy of paper which is a copy of a paper on which was written that the paper is the authentic account of your grand mother (the apostole) saying to other persons that she saw your great-aunt (Jesus) lending 1000$ to the grand-mother of your neighbor. Do you seriously expect that the judge will, even for an instant, consider that as a “legal evidence”?
What evidence Greenleaf gives that the Acts are really an account of the life of the apostoles? None.
What evidence Greenleaf gives that the apostoles were actual historical characters? None.
What evidence Greenleaf gives that they have actually been executed? None.
Greenleaf assumes that the Acts and the christian martyrology are authentic accounts of historical events. If he wants to debate about the events described in them, he should first proves that these events actually occured. And plenty of people tried to do so. Problem is : outside these religious documents, there are no such historical evidence. Except, if I’m not mistaken, that a James has been executed in Judea, according to Flavius Josephus.
So, what Greenleaf does is using a religious at face value and making deduction on this basis. Honestly, there’s a simpler way. Instead of assuming that the Acts are authentic, he could as well assume that another religious document, the New testament, is authentic and describes real events (the life of Christ). He wouldn’t have to bother with subbtle deductions.
Actually, if I remember correctly, it’s exactly the reproach the poster you’re responding to made : Greenleaf uses a a christian document as a basis to prove that a christian document is authentic. Once again, go to a court with a document you wrote stating that another document you also wrote (stating that you are the real owner of a piece of land) is authentic. Do you believe it will be considered as a legal evidence? Not a chance.
And if you believe that the live of the apostoles, their martyrdom, etc…are documented historical events, you’re seriously mistaken.
And the deduction he made is no proof, either. There were, during the recent years (In Switzerland, in Guyanna) whole sects commiting a collective suicide because of religious beliefs who had nothing to do with Christianism (their sould would be “collected” by some comet, I believe, or something like that in one case). Do you think that since they gave their live, their beliefs were true? Why should the apostole’s belief have more value? Also : did you consider that perhaps the apostoles could have said much less than what is written in the Testament, and that their disciples could have added a lot to the story?
But these considerations aren’t very important, actuallY. The real issue is that there is actually no evidence that the apostoles were actual persons, if they were, no evidence that they have been executed, and if they were, no evidence that what they said was actually what is written in the New Testament. And despite this lack of evidences, Greenleaf bases his arguments on the veracity of these religious texts.
Once again : do you know that for a fact, or did you only believe it because it’s what is written on this page?
Considering the total lack of “legal value” of his “evidences” I seriously doubt it. Hence my question.
I resent the assertation that people are Atheists because they are ignorant of “the gospel” and “how Christians think.” That is an extremely ignorant, rude, and condensending position to try to uphold.
I’m not an atheist, but I an agnostic. Left to my own devices, I probably would have happily contiued to worship God and claim Jesus Christ as my Savior. But then I actually began to research a little bit into the Christian religion. The more I learned the less I liked what I saw, what I was, what I stood for. It seems a lot of people who leave Christianity to become atheists, agnostics, pagans, Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, <insert favorite religion> did so not out of ignorance, but because they learned too much to allow themselves to continue believing in the Christian Diety.
Point taken.
Actually, I’m listening. But I’ve listened to all these arguments so often…
The chance that I could be convinced is extremely close to zero, apart if someone could come with some exceptionnaly good arguments I’ve never heard of.
The facts are : There are no evidences for the authenticity of the content of the religious texts. They are also contradictory. The beliefs make no sense if considered objectively. They can’t be obviously deduced from the scriptures themselves. And the dogmas are logically incoherents.
So, indeed, my goal isn’t to ask genuine questions. I believe I already know well the christian faith. My goal is to point out the inconsistencies of this religion. Because I believe that the religion spread ignorance, prevent people from considering the world as it really is and can even be dangerous. As I previously wrote, I don’t respect religion, in the same way that I don’t respect astrology or similar beliefs. And religion is a more important threat than astrology.
Probably I won’t convince you, nor the other christians posters. But there are a lot more people who read these threads. Amongst them some could change their minds. Perhaps now. Perhaps later. Perhaps people who already doubt. Perhaps even people who didn’t even really realized that one can seriously doubt or have no knowledge of the atheists arguments. Perhaps also people who are atheist themselves but are too timid or still too respecteful to really stand for they convictions.
It’s extremely easy to be reached by religion. It’s everywhere. Most people are so accustomed to it that it’s difficult for them to adopt a different look, or to really ponder the religious beliefs in the same way they would consider another kind of belief. On the other hand, atheism is often marginalized, at least in some countries, and prejudiced. Children are conditionned by their parents, by attenting church classes and religious services. Often by their friends, and even by officals.
I believe I’ve a duty to confront the theist arguments when they are exposed, to confront the majority. If I don’t do that, it’s certainly nor the preacher nor the teacher who will offer a contradictory view which is overwhelmingly denied, and hence a real choice. I sow seeds, and I do hope, and even actually believe that someday the bible will find its real place : in the “mythology” division of the libraries.
And by the way, I learn arguing and english…
Well, no, you’re not going to convince me. I have spent, and do spend, plenty of time with atheists. Maybe it’s just the places I’ve lived, but I don’t find that they’re as few and far between as you seem to think (do you live in the Bible Belt or something? :)). I’ve had these talks many, many times. And, well, I’m getting bored, unless there is some real exchange of ideas going on. I’m not seeing that here, at least not in any useful way.
I’m always happy to clear up misconceptions about my faith (and boy, have I seen plenty). But I don’t like to argue any more, and I’ve stopped seeing any point in it.
I also resent slightly the implication that I have not already studied my religion or put any clear thought into it. I have. It happens to be a big interest of mine. Whatever you can throw at me, I’ve heard it. If you were here IRL and we could have a good talk, I would tell you all about my thoughts. But you’re not, and I don’t want to spend the next few weeks typing about it. My hands already hurt, and my baby wants my attention more than you do, and I’m not that coherent online anyway.
Okay, labelling it as anecdotal data is much better than making the global assertion. You do know that anecdotal evidence is biased for many reasons, right? Like the whole issue of self-selection. People tend to associate with others who are similar, hence reporting a “clumping” of data. That doesn’t indicate that the general data is clumped the same way, just that the group isn’t a random sampling.
You’re right that genie snipped the wrong part. She should have quoted:
Which of course is another sweeping baseless assertion.
I don’t see the relevance of my own anecdotal evidence–my comment about athists’ ignorance was specifically limited to this thread. I wouldn’t hazzard a guess about atheists in general.
Since you asked, I’ll give my insights into atheists (not atheism, since there aren’t any theses to really address). Most of the atheists I’ve known don’t make any special argument about God or religion, they simply find Him irrelevant. They live their lives by and large without thought about God, or most of these debates, because the whole issue isn’t that important to Him. They’re contributing members of society etc. Some are what I called “pious atheists” who seem to be more angry at religion than anything else, and so proclaim the nonexistance of God with as much fervor as any missionary. Others have reached points in their lives where they have faced tough questions like, “why are we here”, etc. and have come up with answers other than appeals to God, etc. Still others have decided that religion is too full of contradictions to make any sense, so they must all be false. The majority of atheists I’ve known have fallen into the first category, with smaller amounts filling out the rest of the bell curve. All of my good friends in high school were atheists. I got an undergraduate degree in Computer Science at U.C. Berkeley–hardly a haven from atheists. In fact, most of the people I knew in the Computer Science program who had anything to say about religion looked down on it as some quaint superstition, and seemed to pride themselves for being “above it.”
Does that answer your question?
Note that I’m not positing God as scientific theory or hypothesis. My claim that they were baseless has to do that they were about objective fact–if you’d claimed some spiritual experience, I can’t say much about it, but if you claim something that can be objectively tested, then I can call it bogus when it is. I claim that the basis for my religious beliefs is personally verifiable, but not objectively testable. So while I do put forth my basis for my statements about religion and belief, I’m also putting forth my reasons, knowing full well that they are not testable (by definition!) by science or objective observation. Hence they’re not baseless.
I agree that petition is a non-empty subset of prayer :). My only comment was that petition is not the only purpose for prayer.
Gotta love the wording there: “agree to admit.” No, I don’t agree that prayer has no consequences in the material world. I have been party to numerous counterexamples. No, the questions asked are not valid, because they present a false dichotomy. They posit that all petitions must be granted, or else prayer is invalid. It is quite possible to have a petition denied, and it is quite possible to know that said petition is denied, and why. I have had prayers that ended like that, and prayers in which I have changed my petition because through the Holy Spirit it was made clear that I was asking for the wrong thing. Here’s what I accept as a good description of the whole issue of prayer.
Communion as I’ve used the term is much more than a feeling. It is communcation, accompanied by feeling. Often that communication is from the mortal to Deity, and often it is in the other direction. I have had countless experiences where I’ve received clear, unequivocal communcation from God. The feeling is very much distinct from any other feeling I’ve had (including other senses of community, love, etc.). I have made no assertion that my feeling of communion is more valid than others’.
Again, I’ll state that it’s not just a feeling (and what does “communition” mean, anyway? 
), but is accompanied by a feeling.
Well, I think a complete answer is beyond the scope of this forum. However, the short answer is that my religion is not 100% disjoint from other religions. Because of the overlap, I wouldn’t expect people in other religions to be devoid of communication with God (rhetorical question: how would people convert if that were the case?). However, I directly challenged the basis of the LDS church and received clear answers from God. And I’ve continued to receive clear answers. My experience as an LDS missionary further served as a proof text for me.
I think that the vast majority of all people stick with most tradition they’re born with. It is the rare individual who finds compelling reason to leave whatever tradition he’s accustomed to (whether it be a religious tradition or not). As I’ve commented previously, I don’t believe that people in other churches are prevented from having meaningful prayer. Faith in Christ is sufficient for quite a bit. I only suggest that I have more to offer.
And to answer the last question, there are massive conversions. My missionary experience showed me that just about everyone who seriously investigated what I had to tell them did in fact convert. Some even told me that they had accepted what we’d talked about as true, but couldn’t disappoint family, or felt pressure from friends/culture/whatever to not follow through. The vast majority of people I talked to simply didn’t care to discuss religion in any personal way.
I have indeed attempted to be informed about other religions. However, once I received confirmation (and extensively repeated confirmation at that), why would I attempt to try something else as well?
You know, instead of presuming my experiences, you could wait for the answer. My confirming experiences are many, and yes there was a particularly strong one.
I don’t think I defined faith as narrowly as you’re presenting here. Faith begins as a desire to know, and a knowledge of true principles–that is, you can’t have confirmable faith in something that isn’t true, so you must at least have some basic information about a true spiritual principle before you can have faith. In my case I had had positive experiences that led me to believe that at least God would answer me if I sincerely asked Him. And when I sincerely wanted to know whether He was there or not, He answered loud and clear in the affirmative. As for people of other faiths, I can’t really say much about their experiences, because I haven’t been there, and personal spiritual experiences are something that are often difficult to explain–they really can only be experienced.
Yes, I’m sure it is for many. Many != all, however, and I think that those who use it as a “crutch” are spiritually immature–that doesn’t mean they won’t mature, nor does it mean they are representative of all believers. Also, it’s quite possible that we’re not on the same page as to what “crutch” means.
I made no claim that atheism is convenient. Just like religion, I’m sure that it appears convenient at sometimes, and inconvenient at others. I object at the assertion that atheism reflects reality. I could make the same statement, and this could further degenerate into a shouting match, but I’ve refrained. I also will note that atheism has no unique claim to any “real feeling of freedom and personal responsability.”
Reread my statements please. I did not claim that religion in and of itself makes me happy. Rather, making my life be in harmony with the principles of the Gosple are the source of joy.
Hold on there big guy. I said that it cannot be objectively tested. That makes it impossible to be tested via the scientific method. That does not mean that it has no consequences in the real world. The strongest claim you can make from what I’ve said is that there it has no consequences which can be confirmed by repeated objective tests, and I’ve stated that myself.
Because it was so painfully obvious that it was a false claim, I couldn’t pass it up. I’d already written off the thread as a lost cause, but I couldn’t let such an obviously false claim go by unchallenged.
I don’t mean to sound like a “woo woo”, but if we were created by beings like the Elohim or Annunaki and they are the equivalent to our concept of Aliens then the caring part like we were brought up to believe from a “God” concept goes right out the window.
Actually, I’d disagree with some of this.
Now, I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons, or LDS for short), and I don’t know what you know about us, but here’s my response:
There are no evidences for the authenticity of the content of the religious texts.
Agreed that there is no scientific, objective test that shows that (say) Jesus rose from the dead. I have no problem with this, however.
They are also contradictory.
Disagree. However, I accept that there are errors of translation and transmission in the Bible, and that language may be insufficient to fully express all spiritual issues. However, I know of no contradictions in the Bible (or, additionally for me, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price–all of which can be viewed at http://scriptures.lds.org ).
The beliefs make no sense if considered objectively.
Disagree. At least with my accepted theology.
They can’t be obviously deduced from the scriptures themselves.
Agree. And I find it important that I believe in the existance of a contemporary prophet leading the church on the Earth.**
And the dogmas are logically incoherents.
I think is redundant–you might want to elaborate if it isn’t covered in your previous statements.
If you want to discuss this more, I think this forum isn’t exactly the best place for it, and I’d be willing to continue via email. Let me know, and I’ll post my email address.
OK, see, emarkp has the patience to write out much of what I think, but don’t bother to post.
If you want a historian, check out Sir William Ramsey. He spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke’s credentials as a historian, and to demonstrate the unreliability of the New Testament. Despite his many years of struggling, however,he found Luke’s account to be both consistent and – in his opinion as a historian – highly credible. In the end, Ramsey was forced to conclude: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "
First of all, you’re ASSUMING that it was an assumption in his part. It wasn’t. Any lawyer knows the importance of determining if a witness is CREDIBLE or not, and Greenleaf was THE preeminent authority on legal evidence. Greenleaf attempted to disprove the resurrection account, but in the end, he was forced to admit that it was the only reasonable explanation for the evidence at hand.
You’re also assuming that the Catholic position accurately reflects the age of the Gospels, whereas other scholars who claim otherwise. To shoot Greenleaf down simply because he disagrees with that particular position is patently absurd.
It’s special because the disciples claimed to be EYEWITNESSES. Many people have died for what they believed, but few people would die for what they know to be false. The disciples didn’t just die for their belief; they claimed to have verified it first-hand, and they let themselves be imprisoned, tortured and killed for that belief. Either the disciples were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, or they suffered from mass hallucinations (and highly selective ones, at that!), or they were the victims of an incredibly elaborate hoax which has never, ever been uncovered.
And if you had a first-hand written account from them saying so, you might have some real evidence. But you don’t.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone *
**
Oh, and another thing. Remember that Simon Greenleaf was attempting to disprove the gospel accounts. Why the heck would he assume their validity if his goal was to disprove the resurrection?
So yeah, it’s an assumption (a false assumption!) that Greenleaf assumed the Bible to be valid. He didn’t, and he had no reason to do so.
Dale The Bold wrote:
This is known, at least in modern times, as the “Babel Fish” argument (named after the universal-translator fish from Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.) :[ul][li]“I must have faith,” says God, “For without faith I am nothing.”[/li][li]“But,” says Man, “The Babel Fish is a dead giveaway as to Your existence. Such a phenomenally useful creature could not possibly have evolved through natural processes, therefore You must have created it. This proves that You exist – and therefore, by Your own requirements, You don’t. Q.E.D.”[/li]“Oh,” says God, “I never thought of that,” and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.[/ul]
People have died for things they believed in that were not true. The events of 9-11-01 is just the latest example. Or do you think the terrorists died for something they did NOT believe in? Do you think that the terrorists died for a truth or for a lie?
With all due respect, I don’t think you’re paying attention.
The disciples didn’t merely “believe” in the resurrection. They claimed to have SEEN the resurrected Jesus Christ. In other words, they claim to have been eyewitnesses to this fact.
Either they were deceived through some elaborate (and hitherto unexplained) means, or they were all willing to die for a known falsehood, or they truly did witness the resurreced Christ.
First of all, there ARE first-hand written accounts from the disciples, saying so. Matthew was among the martyred church leaders, and John was imprisoned and exiled on the island of Patmos for this alleged “lie.” In addition, these accounts are corroborated by the writings of John Mark, Luke, James and Saul of Tarsus, to name a few. (Remember that Luke was lauded as being an impeccable and top-notch historian.) There is also a notable absence of any documents stating “No, we never actually claimed to have seen the risen Messiah.”
Besides, do you truly mean to suggest that a “first-hand written account” is the only way to establish what somebody said or believed? By that standard, we would have to throw out virtually ALL of recorded ancient history. I challenge you to find a single historian who would support that assertion. (This very topic was raised in some of the debates by Dr. William Lane Craig, as recorded at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/).