Sunday, 1 June 2008

Round 2

Well, JB has come up with a response even more stupid than I was expecting here. I cant believe that im wasting my time responding to such stupidity but here we go.

At this juncture, I could rehearse various standards in resurrection apologetics.
All of which have been debunked time and time again

Early testimony to the empty tomb, perhaps.
Easily explained by Richard Dawkins here:
"Presumably what happened to Jesus was what happens to all of us when we die. We decompose." Now when you think about it Jubus body was not in the tomb because it was eaten by worms.

group of remotely rational individuals will especially not surrender their lives in such a manner without an especially passionate belief in the validity of their cause
So would a group of people believe something as stupid as a guy discovering golden plates in a wood when they had been proven to be a fake by a guy who had fraud metaphorically written all over him. I remember some mormons telling me that there were eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen Joseph smith with the golden plates and died for this belief of theirs. Oh hang on, your not a mormon. Does the fact that xianity started seem any more odd than something as stupid as mormonism?

the origin of the disciples' belief seems inexplicable
Nobody believed that golden plates were hidden in a wood before mormonism so it must be true...it think not. Where id the mormon belief of the golden plates come from? We must also remember that this was a time before TV, nintendo wiis and yhe internet and so people got bored and made up stories of reserected friends for fun.

This all being the case, it remains for Mike to propose a detailed and historically plausible alternative explanation for the rise of early Christianity that encompasses all available data in a satisfactory manner.
No, because of russels teapot you have to show why xianity starting is different to other religions and offer a sensible explantion of how a man eaten by worms came back to life.

"Science" is thus powerless, by its very nature, to provide "an overriding reason to believe the resurrection of Jesus to be genuinely impossible".
You cannot say that the BBC website is not credible and yet that says:
Almost all rationalists are atheists or agnostics. There has been a long link between rationalism and scientific method.

Dawkins, with all due respect to the man for... well, whatever his positive contributions to the world might happen to be
He discovered memes, conveted many people to science, has written best selling books, converted douglas adams to reason,is going to be on dr who...the list is endless

The simple reply to this is that the premise is simply false. "Most pagan gods" were not claimed to have experienced anything comparable to a historical resurrection from physical death to living physical existence.
Oh dear - youve been brain washed by your xian friends

provided he does so with something more credible than Zeitgeist
Well what about robert price - he thinks they ripped of the reserection from pagan myths. now robert price is proberly the top scholar on this subject in the world. As indiana jones is to a good action movie, einstein is to science and mr bean is to comedy Robert Price is to biblical scholarship.

I hope that perhaps one day, you might happen to dispense with your irrational objections to Christianity and finally submit to the truth.
You wont convert me to xianity in a million years. I hope that one day you'll see the light and start reading science books instead of the bible.

41 comments:

Nick said...

Oh wow. He discovered Memes? Do tell what a meme looks like. Give me all the details. Memes are simply a concept created by Dawkins of which no evidence has been put forward.

And Mikey, as someone who does know both arguments, you're nowhere close to JB. Have you read anything remotely defending the resurrection?

Mike is Wright said...

Did newton discover gravity? what does gravity look like?

Anonymous said...

I'm going to save the meat for JB, but just a couple of points..

Mike
Easily explained by Richard Dawkins here: "Presumably what happened to Jesus was what happens to all of us when we die. We decompose." Now when you think about it Jubus body was not in the tomb because it was eaten by worms.


johnny Anon
Bodies do not decompose in 3 days as is the claim of the Ressurection.
If you are going to quote Dawkins as "Gospel Truth", then you better be prepared with an answer, instead of going in circles.
Are you aware what Dawkins was implying?

Mike
No, because of russels teapot you have to show why xianity starting is different to other religions and offer a sensible explantion of how a man eaten by worms came back to life.,

johnny Anonymous aka xtreem5150ahm LOL
You need to address the refutations to the teapot if you want to continue to use it.

And Dawkin's worm explaination is not even an explaination of the evidence... which brings you back to the teapot, Mike....
I thought you said you were smart.
How about giving us a demonstration?


Mike
You cannot say that the BBC website is not credible and yet that says: Almost all rationalists are atheists or agnostics. There has been a long link between rationalism and scientific method.

johnny
eh, excuse me?
Have they interviewed ALL rationalists about their metaphysical beliefs?

And, as Chaotic Void pointed out earlier, where did science come from?


Mike
Oh dear - youve been brain washed by your xian friends


johnny
Here is the kicker, Mike...

Since you claim to be smart and rational, please provide a proof that it is not you that has been brain washed.


Nearly every point you've managed to steal from someone else, has been addressed and demolished, and you are so brainwashed that you can't even see it.

We Christians have not ignored your links. We've looked at your references.... some have already been destroyed by Christians (ex. JB's response to Zietgiest).

Instead of blindly quoting Dawkins or YouTube, why don't you actually think about both sides honestly?

OH, and btw, many of us have read science books. In fact, i happen to be reading a book called, "Mind Time" by Benjamin Libet
(google his name).


In the Hope of Christ,
johnny

Anonymous said...

gravity is more than just a concept... it has physical effects.

johnny

Steven Carr said...

'group of remotely rational individuals will especially not surrender their lives in such a manner....'

Rational?

Paul believed he had gone to the third Heaven.

The New Testament says Peter had visions of unclean food.

The NT says Paul saw people in visions and thought he was seeing real people.

The NT claims people believed real angels appeared to them in dreams , conveying real messages from their alleged god.

The NT claims people believed the Queen of Sheba would rise from her grave so she could judge people.

You don't need an historian to explain the rise of Christianity.

You need a psychiatrist.

Or possibly a policeman.

Steven Carr said...

And why could Christians never produce the resurrected body of Jesus?

For the same reason that Muhammad could never produce the Angel Gabriel and for the same reason that Joseph Smith could never produce the Golden Plates?

Why did even Christian converts scoff at the idea that their alleged god would choose to raise a corpse?

Steven Carr said...

'Early testimony to the empty tomb, perhaps.'

There isn't any.

I know. Paul *implies* an empty tomb.

Let us suppose that he does, for the sake of argument.

Imagine if somebody claimed a second gunman shot John F. Kennedy. A claim of a second gunman certainly implies a second gun.

But if there was a second gun, wouldn't that imply that there was a second gunman?

That sort of specious reasoning would be rejected at once by Christians, yet this seems to be what they are serving up.

Paul mentions a resurrection, This implies an empty tomb. And an empty tomb implies a resurrection.

This is totally circular reasoning, as circular as the claim that a second gunman implies a second gun, and that a second gun implies a second gunman.

In both cases, we need to see a second gun or an empty tomb before there is even an argument to criticise.

Anonymous said...

Steven Carr
'group of remotely rational individuals will especially not surrender their lives in such a manner....'

Rational?

Paul believed he had gone to the third Heaven.

The New Testament says Peter had visions of unclean food.

The NT says Paul saw people in visions and thought he was seeing real people.

The NT claims people believed real angels appeared to them in dreams , conveying real messages from their alleged god.

The NT claims people believed the Queen of Sheba would rise from her grave so she could judge people.

You don't need an historian to explain the rise of Christianity.

You need a psychiatrist.

Or possibly a policeman


That's right... a rational person such as yourself, can just dismiss all these claims with a wave of your hand.
Yet, there still is the case that Christianity started against huge odds, and is continuing to grow, despite your handwaving and Mike's stolen (and defeated) arguments.



Steven Carr said...
And why could Christians never produce the resurrected body of Jesus?

For the same reason that Muhammad could never produce the Angel Gabriel and for the same reason that Joseph Smith could never produce the Golden Plates?


More hand waving again, Steven?


Steven Carr said...
'Early testimony to the empty tomb, perhaps.'


In both cases, we need to see a second gun or an empty tomb before there is even an argument to criticise.



That is why the texts mentioned witnesses. The person's hearing the claims ~~2000 years ago were urged to check the witness accounts.

johnny

lilpixieofterror said...

This is the best that secular web can produce? HAHAHAHA! No wonder few people take Steve Carr seriously, just take a look at one stupid comment:

And why could Christians never produce the resurrected body of Jesus?

Well Stevie if you actually bothered to read the Bible instead of making dumb comments online you would of discovered that in Acts 1 that Jesus and his resurrected body was taken up to heaven so there wouldn't be any physical evidence for it and before you say something stupid about how that 'proves' Christianity is false. Does us not having Alexander the Great's body prove that he never existed?

Steven Carr said...

Of course rational people dismiss claims that somebody saw unclean food in a vision.


Just like anon dismisses claims that Muhammad saw the Angel Gabriel.

Paul says 500 unnamed people saw an 'appearance' of Jesus at an unnamed place and an unnamed time.

How could that be checked?

Perhaps Jesus 'appeared' on a nacho....

Of course, a true believer like anon has no need to check.

Just as he has no need to check that Paul really did go to Heaven.

Why then should I believe that Christian converts of 2,000 years ago would check these 500 people?

And how could they do it?

Perhaps Paul saw Jesus appear to these 500 in one of his visions.

I see that anon cannot produce any evidence that Jesus appeared to 500 people (and not on a nacho)

Steven Carr said...

I forgot.

Christians could not produce the resurrected body of Jesus, because it travelled up into the clouds and presumably disappeared up Uranus.

Just like Joseph Smith and his Golden Plates which also conveniently disappeared.

And the Angel Gabriel also went back to Heaven.

And some stupid people believe the obvious frauds that all religions begin with.

Just tell the idiots 'It went to Heaven', and they swallow it all up.

Gosh, there are so many suckers in the world.

Steven Carr said...

'Does us not having Alexander the Great's body prove that he never existed?'

It proves he never came back to life after dying....

Nick said...

Stevie. You wanna say all you have to say at once instead of leaving helter-skelter posts full of nonsense?

Rational people dismiss such claims...

Oh really? You wanna show I'm irrational without using circular reasoning? Here's a clue. I don't dismiss Muhammad's vision account because angels don't appear to people and give messages. I dismiss it based on the content and how it compares with prior revelation.

Paul claimed he saw people appear to him in visions at times like the man from Macedonia. Please note Paul knew it was a vision also.

They also had angels coming and giving them messages. That's only crazy if you rule that out to begin with. You gotta argue from the presuppositions of theism and not naturalism Stevie. Otherwise it's simply, "Christianity is false because it violates naturalism." Well duh! We know it violates naturalism! We just don't know naturalism is true. (And you'd have no way of knowing if it was.)

We believe the Queen of Sheba will rise up and condemn this generation? Nope. The Queen of Sheba will be able to join in the condemnation. It's God who pronounces the condemnation.

Now wanna tell me how some people believed a dead man was the Messiah? Notice something about these other Messianic movements. When the claimant died, the movement ended. Not so with Jesus. The movement really started after the death of Jesus.

How do you check the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses? It would be easy. You'd go and ask them.

Hey Stevie. Go to see DJ's blog. I'm sure he's looking for other writers and you've got just the quality for it.

Steven Carr said...

Well, we have nutcases who believe angels appear in dreams.

2,000 years ago, another nutcase, Saul, thought Jesus appeared to him.

Perhaps in the same way Christian nutcases of today claim Jesus appears to them on a nacho.

The guy also thought he had gone to Heaven.

Christians have no evidence for angels appearing in dreams or for people travelling to Heaven.

They just believe it all to be true, because they live in a fantasy world where people have visions of unclean food *and think it is really happening*

Christians have zero evidence of a resurrection, other than claims that Jesus travelled into the sky on his way to heaven.

Newsflash. There is no heaven above the sky.

Jesus could no more travel to Heaven than Muhammad could travel to heaven

Steven Carr said...

Paul knew the man from Macedonia was only a vision.

Then why the hell did he think there was a real person there?

Was Paul as stupid as you? He thought a real person was in a vision?

And where does Paul say his appearance by Jesus was *not* a vision?

Steven Carr said...

How do you check the claims of 500 people?

What were their names? What did they see?

Did Jesus appear to them on a nacho?

Did Paul have one of his 'visions' where he saw Jesus appear to 500 people?

Prove these people even existed.

Enough suckers would buy a claim that 500 people really did exist for Christianity to continue,

Even Joseph Smith knew he could get enough suckers if he said that people had seen the Golden Plates.

There are a lot of suckers in the world.

Nick said...

Sorry Stevie. You still don't get it. It's only stupid if you can show angels and such don't exist, to which the only answer is "It's not materialism, therefore it's false!"

You do know that Aristotle believed in angels? Right?

You do know you could find the same in Plotinus. Right?

I suppose they're irrational also.

Steven Carr said...

The movement started after the death of Jesus?

Just like Mormonism only really started *after* the Golden Plates had gone to Heaven?

Sucker....

Steven Carr said...

And it is only rational to believe in Pegasus until somebody proves that winged horses do not exist.

And leprechauns....

It is you who claims that angels appear in dreams.

Reality check.

What happens in a dream is a *dream*.

It isn't real. You are asleep You are only dreaming.

But some idiots believe in dreams and visions.

The early Christians did.

So where is your evidence that Paul is not talking about visions when he said Jesus appeared to 500 people?

Where is the evidence Paul did not 'dream' up these 500 people while he was asleep?

How Christians hate the word 'evidence'....

Suckers hate having to find the evidence for what they believe, or else it would be revealed to them just how much they have been conned.

Nick said...

Stevie. You wanna give an argument showing materialism is true because unless you demonstrate that, it does no good to show that the other side believes in angels, which I've just pointed out that some of the greatest thinkers in history believed in.

You really should read a book without the word "Illustrated" on the cover sometime.

Steven Carr said...

Reality check.

Angels do not appear in dreams, because you are only *dreaming*

Real people from Macedonia do not teleport like in Star Trek to appear in a vision of Paul.

Harry Potter is not real.

I don't have to prove naturalism is 'true' to know that Harry Potter is not real, and that Jesus did not take off into the sky on his way to Heaven.

Jesus is not up Uranus. It never happened. There is no heaven to be reached by travelling into the sky.

Nick said...

You have to prove naturalism in order to show anything supernatural is nonsense.

It must be nice to have everyone else prove everything and not do the same for your beliefs.

Sorry Stevie. I'll side with the great philosophers before the stupid moderns.

Steven Carr said...

So we can't show that Harry Potter is nonsense?

And we can't show that when Nick is asleep, he is only dreaming and it is *not real*

And Nick can't show that Paul did not dream up these alleged 500 people, just like Paul dreamed up a visit by a man from Macedonia , and thought a real person had transsported like a Star Trek character.

Nick is making an idiot of himself.

But as I said, and as Joseph Smith knew, there are lots of suckers in the world.

Just tell them the Golden Plates have gone to Heaven, or that Jesus had gone to Heaven and the suckers will be happy.

Hey Nick, what do you think of professional wrestling? Do you think it's real, or do we have to wait for Vince McMahon to say that the Undertaker has gone to Heaven before we should believe it is all real?

Nick said...

Let me say it again.

All you're saying is "This doesn't happen naturally, and since naturalism is true, this is false."

You have to show naturalism is false.

I'm not the one making an idiot of myself. The statements of the philosophers themselves agree with me.

If anyone's reputation is being shot here, it's yours, except you don't have one.

Steven Carr said...

Nick still thinks people transport from place to place to appear in visions.

Perhaps if he had some evidence that when people slept, their dreams were real...

But the guy thinks angels appear to people in dreams.

No wonder Joseph Smith knew he could find lots of suckers....

But how can you have a rational argument with somebody who lives in a fantasy world?

Somebody who thinks naturalism has to be proved true, before we can rule out that Harry Potter can't really do magic, because *nobody* can do magic?

How can you have a rational argument with somebody who reads Harry Potter or the Bible and thinks 'Well, it could happen...'?

Nick said...

Yes. I do have to see naturalism is true before I know the laws of nature are unable to be violated. It's quite simple. Of course, it could be you're scared of that because you have no evidence that it is.

How convenient. Every other worldview must give evidence but naturalism is to be accepted a priori.

Oooooh. A priori. I should make it a point not to use such big words around Stevie Weevie.

Anonymous said...

Steve Carr said:
Of course rational people dismiss claims that somebody saw unclean food in a vision.


You're setting up a strawman there, Steve.


Just like anon dismisses claims that Muhammad saw the Angel Gabriel.

Did i say that i did or did not dismiss Muhammad's claim.

I've done neither. I have not examined Muhammad's claim.


Paul says 500 unnamed people saw an 'appearance' of Jesus at an unnamed place and an unnamed time.

How could that be checked?


And if you had read my post more carefully, you would know that i specifically stated that the people hearing these claims, about 2000 yrs ago, were encouraged to check out the witnesses.

That there are no claims from that time, that said, "hey, i asked a bunch of folks, and no one knows anything about any witnesses" says that either
1) no one claimed that witnesses were unavailable;
2) no one bothered to check;
3) or the claims were made a few centuries later, and the claims could not be checked.....

But, from other evidence, we can rule out #3. And, although you think that you are the only person who's not willing to trust extraordinary claims, claims of a dead man rising is very difficult to explain away as, "they believed because they were gullible". And this means the #2 has a very low probability, leaving only #1 as the most rational choice.

So, deal with #1 and even #2 or show that #3 is true and can not be ruled out..

Perhaps Jesus 'appeared' on a nacho....

Although i think this has an extremely low probability, and i would not accept the claim outright, please show that this is an impossibility.

Of course, a true believer like anon has no need to check.

Aparently, neither do you... however, there are ways to substantiate the probabilities.

Just as he has no need to check that Paul really did go to Heaven.

Why then should I believe that Christian converts of 2,000 years ago would check these 500 people?

That is the purpose of understanding the article. But, if i must, i'll put it in very simple terms, so that even you can understand.... people know that other people don't normally walk on water, turn water into wine, born of a virgin, and rise from the dead.... claims of this sort tend to be normally rejected unless there is SOMETHING extraordinary that proves otherwise.... a claim such as, "go ask uncle bob, he was there" can, if you respect uncle bob, sway your opinion.... especially if uncle bob used to believe in something else, and you see uncle bob willing to die for his new understanding.... and if the claim is that there are 499 more folks that claim the same thing, and have changed their life...
are you starting to get the picture?


Not to mention, your question presupposes that it is the Converts that do or don't do the checking, after the claim... but you ignore the possibility that the CHECKING OF THE CLAIMS is the very thing that caused them to be converts.

And how could they do it?

fighting my desire to say, they could google it, or ask someone on youtube....

The culture had certain Holy Days that people would go to Jeruselem, where, all you would have to do, once you were there, is ask around.... maybe even joke around about it, like, "hehehe, did you hear the claim that some guy named Paul made? He said 500 people saw some guy named Jesus walking around after He was crucified to death.... what a looney, eh?"

"oh really, wear does your uncle bob live? i wouldn't mind hearing this for myself"

Perhaps Paul saw Jesus appear to these 500 in one of his visions.

meh.. perhaps. But Scripture does not say this (or anything about a taco, either).

I see that anon cannot produce any evidence that Jesus appeared to 500 people (and not on a nacho)

I have the same evidence that you have, Steve. The Scriptures claim that there were 500 witnesses.

I see that you have not produced evidence that says someone checked out the claims and talked to {all / most / some / even one} and found the claim to be false. Where is your document that refutes the Bible?


Steven Carr said...
Christians could not produce the resurrected body of Jesus, because it travelled up into the clouds and presumably disappeared up Uranus.


LOL, cute.

At anyrate, ask yourself this:

If the diciples wanted to have a fool proof story, why did they say that it was a bodily resurrection?
Why not say it was a Spiritual Resurrection?

That the Romans and the Jewish leaders did not produce a body as refutation, says something, no?

Just like Joseph Smith and his Golden Plates which also conveniently disappeared.

I have not studied Mormanism, so i'm not making a claim about them.

If you want to continue erecting strawmen so you can defeat something, go right on ahead.

But, if you want to be honest with yourself, deal with the claims being made here.

And the Angel Gabriel also went back to Heaven.

Again, i have not dismissed these claims, since i have not even dealt with these claims.

And some stupid people believe the obvious frauds that all religions begin with.

OH, i see.... much like those that are elevating Richard Dawkins to god status.

Just tell the idiots 'It went to Heaven', and they swallow it all up.

Have you thought of the implications that your statement makes?

1. That there was not 500 witnesses to Jesus resurrected body over a period of, what, 40 days?(that could be investigated at the time)
2. That the claim that there were witnesses is an outright lie.(that could be investigated at the time)
3. That the claim that there were witnesses is a delusional fake (that could be investigated at the time)

and, not exhaustively, but finally:

4.that those that lied about the Resurrected Lord, were willing to die for that claim (and some did)


oh yeah... almost forgot..

Did you know that there was one person alive, that had the unique ability to know if Jesus was God or not, prior to His death on the Cross?

Mary. If she would have piped up that her son were dying for a lie, there would be no Christianity.

It would not have gotten off the ground... there would be no 4th century church to burn any records.
Even the claims of Peter on Pentecoste would have been laughed out the door so fast that Peter would have be executed without fear of making a martyr of him.

Gosh, there are so many suckers in the world.

It is amazing, isn't it.

So, are you going to be a sucker for atheism, or are you actually going to look at the evidence honestly?

Steven Carr said...

It proves he never came back to life after dying....


Interesting... we don't have the body of Alexander and you think he was a real person but we can't prove it because he must have decomposed.

On the other hand, you think that Jesus didn't live because we do not have the body.

(hey, i can make straw men arguments too. :P )

God Bless,
johnny aka Anon aka xtreem5150

Anonymous said...

Steven said:

Somebody who thinks naturalism has to be proved true, before we can rule out that Harry Potter can't really do magic, because *nobody* can do magic?

How can you have a rational argument with somebody who reads Harry Potter or the Bible and thinks 'Well, it could happen...'?



Strawman again Steve? Your pretty good at making them, but your argument amounts to the level of your construction.

Tell us who is making the claim that Harry Potter is real.

Tell us how it can be proved that Harry Potter and the Bible are on equal footing.... your only argument is that the claims in the Bible do not happen naturally.

As Nick pointed out, and it went over your head, you need to show that the natural is the only thing possible.


johnny

Steven Carr said...

It seems the logic runs that talking animals in Harry Potter are not true, because nobody claims they are true.

But talking animals in the Bible are true, because some people claim they are!

So that is Christian evidence.

If somebody claims something is true, that is evidence that it is true!

Amazing logic. No wonder Joseph Smith knew he could find suckers to believe his story of Golden Plates going off to Heaven.

And how people knew they could find suckers for a story of a resurrected Jesus , who went off to Heaven,,,

Please produce an angel.

And then show that angels really do appear to people while they are asleep and dreaming.

Please produce evidence that tongues of fire 'appeared' on the apostles heads at Pentecost.

And name one of these alleged 500 witnesses.

Perhaps they were like Mormon witnesses to the Golden Plates.

Gosh, there are so many suckers in the world who will believe any old rubbish.

Talking donkeys, fire appearing on people's heads, lots of people rising from graves and appearing to people in Jerusalem.

Christians believe it all.

Without a shred of evidence.

Yet these same Christians claim James had a personal relationship with his brother , who was born of a virgin, and still was sceptical.

Christians lap up any old rubbish, such as Jesus disappearing into the sky , on his way to Pluto.

Yet they think somebody is sceptical , although his very own brother was born of a virgin.

While Christians themselves are so gullible , they think real people transported from Macedonia to appear in Paul's visions.

But you can't debate people who live in a fantasy world.

It is like debating Muslims about Muhammad or Mormons about Joseph Smith.

The suckers can't bring themselves to examine the evidence, because deep down they know they have been conned.

Nick said...

Stevie. You still can't answer my challenge to show that naturalism is all there is. This is a clash of worldviews first and foremost so let's see whose worldview is closer to reality. Theism or atheism.

By the way, you spoke of logic. Can you please put logic before my eyes? Can I see logic?
Can I taste it?
Can I touch it?
Can I hear it?
Can I smell it?

Maybe if I can't, and all that is matter would fall into those categories somehow, then logic doesn't exist in your worldview.

And judging from your rambling here, that would be a fair assumption to make.

Anonymous said...

Steven Carr said...
It seems the logic runs that talking animals in Harry Potter are not true, because nobody claims they are true.

But talking animals in the Bible are true, because some people claim they are!

So that is Christian evidence.

If somebody claims something is true, that is evidence that it is true!


No.

If Harry Potter is not being claimed to be true, it is not evidence for or against something that is claimed to be true.

Amazing logic. No wonder Joseph Smith knew he could find suckers to believe his story of Golden Plates going off to Heaven.

Strawman again.

And how people knew they could find suckers for a story of a resurrected Jesus , who went off to Heaven,,,

You aren't very familiar with that time period and that culture, are you?

I'll put it in the simplest terms i can for you.
Crucifixion was consider one of the most dishonorable ways one could die.
Claiming that you are God is the worst possible Sin you could make.

The majority of the culture did not believe in resurrection.

So, those that were looking for "suckers" were starting off with three left feet...

And where did they start to proclaim this new dance??

Right smack in the middle of the worst place they could start.

Please produce an angel.

Please prove you are thinking of a red ball.

And then show that angels really do appear to people while they are asleep and dreaming.

Please prove that the red ball in your imagination, is bouncing.

Please produce evidence that tongues of fire 'appeared' on the apostles heads at Pentecost.


Acts chapter 2.

What? You don't like that evidence, then prove it wrong.

And name one of these alleged 500 witnesses.

We aren't given any of those names, that i know of.
I'm still waiting for you to prove that red, bouncing ball in your mind... can you produce a picture of it? (your mind, i mean, not the red ball)

Perhaps they were like Mormon witnesses to the Golden Plates.

perhaps.

Gosh, there are so many suckers in the world who will believe any old rubbish.

and now you are a new sucker, believing in new rubbish.

Talking donkeys, fire appearing on people's heads, lots of people rising from graves and appearing to people in Jerusalem.

Is it your claim that any of these things are impossible?

How do you know?

Christians believe it all.

No, actually, there are many Christians that try to explain it away much like you and Mike are trying to do.

Without a shred of evidence.

There is plenty of evidence, you just refuse it, based on your naturalism.

For one, the Gospel record is evidence.
For two, Christianity itself.

Yet these same Christians claim James had a personal relationship with his brother , who was born of a virgin, and still was sceptical.

Yup... that is a big order, is it not? Pretty amazing... even Jesus' brother knew how babies are made, and that dead people usually stay dead.

More amazing is that, since this is damning evidence, it is included.... it should have been toss in the closet---

unless it's true... hmmm.

Christians lap up any old rubbish, such as Jesus disappearing into the sky , on his way to Pluto.

Pluto eh?... the planetiod or the dog like critter?

Oh, wait.... yer pull'n mi leg, airn't ya?

Yet they think somebody is sceptical , although his very own brother was born of a virgin.

I think you missed a word or two... that sentence doesn't make much sense.

While Christians themselves are so gullible , they think real people transported from Macedonia to appear in Paul's visions.

I'm pretty sure that Jesus had already Ascended at that time.

What you need to do, is prove that Paul's vision is only a hallucination.... or that it did not happen.

Sing me a song of your little red bouncy ball... or your mind.

But you can't debate people who live in a fantasy world.

I don't think you live in a fantasy world. I think you are reasonably rational.

In fact, i think you are so rational, that if you were a part of a:

'group of remotely rational individuals

you would:
not surrender their lives in such a manner....'

It is like debating Muslims about Muhammad or Mormons about Joseph Smith.

I'll take your word for it. I haven't had the opportunity.
I prefer atheists and agnostics, but to each his own.

The suckers can't bring themselves to examine the evidence, because deep down they know they have been conned.


It seems to me that you have a two edged sword there Steven.
I'm guessing that you've written off Christianity before you examined it, and any examination you make, is tainted by your previous view.

What's that called again...

...affirming the consequent... or maybe it's denying the antecedent.

signed,
johnny--i saw it in a taco--anon

JB said...

You'll be able to find my response to this one at:

http://mundaneenigma.blogspot.com/2008/06/second-response-to-mike-wright.html

lilpixieofterror said...

Christians could not produce the resurrected body of Jesus, because it travelled up into the clouds and presumably disappeared up Uranus.

This is what we call a strawmen argument. My dear, even if we did have a body, how do we prove that it's a 'resurrected' body? Is it suppose to be magical or something?

Just like Joseph Smith and his Golden Plates which also conveniently disappeared.

And Joseph Smith is also shown to be a liar when he claimed that a Egyptologist said it was
Egyptian when the Egyptologist said it wasn't. What is it called when you lie about what a person tells you?

And the Angel Gabriel also went back to Heaven.

So are angels suppose to stay around for you to look at?

And some stupid people believe the obvious frauds that all religions begin with.

And how is it an obvious fraud? Is it an 'obvious fraud' that we do not have the body of Alexander the Great? Is it an oblivious fraud that we do not have evidence that Hannibal crossed the Alps into Rome? Stevie, I can not see why anybody takes you serious, with this dumb reasoning

Just tell the idiots 'It went to Heaven', and they swallow it all up.

Really? So is that who flocks to look at your blog? So far you look like an idiot that I can not see why anybody would take your stupidity and idiocy seriously.

Gosh, there are so many suckers in the world.

You and everybody who takes you seriously being a few of them, with your dumb reasoning and all. After all, even if we did have a body, how are we suppose to prove that body was resurrected? Is it suppose to be magical or something? It's a wonder anybody can take you and your idiocy seriously, it sounds
like the rantings of a desperate man, searching for anything... and everything to help him hold onto his doubt.

FiFi said...

Nick, you're ignorant as hell. Memes are an extremely important part of our history and future. If you don't understand them, don't mock them, but do read up on them so you know what they are.

Why do rational people have to convince you that your figure-head didn't rise from the dead and then flew up to heaven after a few weeks. Surely if you make such a wild and fantastical claim, the onus is on you to prove that its true?! Its like me saying, "I am God. Now try to convince me otherwise". Its just not believable!

As for how Christianity is any different to any other religion or cult, please read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2267426

Its just one example of it, if you like I'll find more accounts for you.

There's a good reason we wave our hands at your ludicrous Christian claims. Its because they are indeed ludicrous.

I feel the need to point out to you all that there's a difference between twisting an argument to fit your story, and 'trashing somebody's argument'. Just because you can feel smug that you've made a point, doesn't mean it makes any kind of sense to a rational mind.

And Johnny Taco said:
'You aren't very familiar with that time period and that culture, are you?

I'll put it in the simplest terms i can for you.
Crucifixion was consider one of the most dishonorable ways one could die.
Claiming that you are God is the worst possible Sin you could make.

The majority of the culture did not believe in resurrection.

So, those that were looking for "suckers" were starting off with three left feet...

And where did they start to proclaim this new dance??

Right smack in the middle of the worst place they could start.'

That doesn't make it any more true!

The whole religion is about as true as Cinderella.

Don't call non-Christians dumb - its rather hypocritical, but then that shoe would fit, wouldn't it.

Hi Steve, nice to see some common sense being said for once.

lilpixieofterror said...

Greetings Fifi, I was looking for more of your idiocy and I found you!
Well, time for some fun.

Nick, you're ignorant as hell. Memes are an extremely important part of our history and future. If you don't understand them, don't mock them, but do read up on them so you know what they are

He's ignorant for not agreeing with you and daring to question you and your beliefs! How dare he does that! Do you even know what Memes are? Perhaps you should explain it and tell us what evidence there is for them. You do know what they are, right?

Why do rational people have to convince you that your figure-head didn't rise
from the dead and then flew up to heaven after a few weeks.


Fifi's definition of rational people -

People who agree with me!

Sorry, but I haven't seen any kind of rational answers for your bunch yet, just dumb reasoning for the so called 'best of secular web.' Your hero's are jokes that I get a good laugh at reading. Can you actually give a real argument now or is this boasting the best you can produce?

Surely if you make such a wild and fantastical claim, the onus is on you to prove that nits true?! Its like me saying, "I am God. Now try to convince me otherwise". Its just not believable!

You mean like for 2,000 years, nobody has ever offered a better explanation of what happened on that day 2,000 years ago? Or the fact that for 2,000 years, those who haven done an honest investigation of the fact have come to the conclusion there is no reason to doubt? As for your claims about being God, what is my hair color?

As for how Christianity is any different to any other religion or cult, please
read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2267426


So some people adopting Christians practices into their beliefs proves Christianity is false? So what does that prove? That you're an idiot who uses dumb reasoning and sloppy
thinking to make her cases?

Its just one example of it, if you like I'll find more accounts for you.

So some people who practiced voodoo called themselves Catholics and that therefore means that Christianity is false? How does that work? Can you show how that logic flows or is it what I have come to expect from you... you trying to hide your emotional reasons behind rational ones?

There's a good reason we wave our hands at your ludicrous Christian claims. Its because they are indeed ludicrous.

And yet... you fail to show any evidence to back up your claims, just ranting like an idiot.

I feel the need to point out to you all that there's a difference between twisting an argument to fit your story, and 'trashing somebody's argument'. Just because you can feel smug that you've made a point, doesn't mean it makes any kind of sense to a rational mind.

And can you show that any twisting has gone on yet? Nope, that is why you're ranting like an idiot; because you can't show it so you're trying to dodge by saying as little as you can in as many words as possible! Now are you going to get to the point yet? The reality here is that it's too hard for you to answer, so you're dodging it!

I'll put it in the simplest terms i can for you. Crucifixion was consider one of the most dishonorable ways one could die.
Claiming that you are God is the worst possible Sin you could make.


And that proves that Jesus is not the Christ... the son of the living God how?

The majority of the culture did not believe in resurrection.

The majority of people do not know what meme is, so I guess that proves they don't exist, eh?

I'm getting rather bored with your ranting, so I'm going to cut you off there, enjoy your idiocy.

Steven Carr said...

It was indeed difficult to persuade people of a resurrected Jesus.

Even Christian converts scoffed at the idea of alleged god choosing to raise a corpse.

And having to tell people that your resurrected body has gone to heaven, doesn't help either.

Perhaps that explains why so many Jews, right in the epicentre of where it all 'happened', did not convert.

Just like most people did not buy Joseph Smiths Golden Plates story.

Mind you, it is amazingly convincing that James was a sceptic who converted.

I saw a find-the-lady game in the street the other day.

I was always convinced these things were frauds

But the dealer's brother said that initially he too had been sceptical of the honesty of his brother.

But the dealer's brother had watched a few games and was now convinced that the game was on the level.

Really! Claims that the brother of someone was sceptical and was later convinced is the oldest trick in the book!

Nick said...

Fifi. Sorry. I've read Dawkins himself. He postulates an entity that he has no evidence for and is not seen as a proven theorem in the scientific world and then complains with Christians about God. (Who we do have evidence for.) Sure. Read Dawkins, but then read Alister McGrath's critique of Dawkins. You're not afraid of the other side.

Stevie Weevie. Do you have an explanation for the existence of logic yet? It's not something you can detect with your senses after all.

lilpixieofterror said...

It was indeed difficult to persuade people of a resurrected Jesus.

Still dodging, eh? this is the best that secular web has to offer, huh? Wow, what a laughing stock you are! Come on now Stevie, tell us what a resurrected body should look like and how we can test to discover rather or not it is indeed resurrected. I can only take so much ranting in one day as such, I will not waste my time with the rest of your idiocy.

Anonymous said...

Fifi said:

That doesn't make it any more true!


You're exactly right, Fifi.. however, that was not the point... the point was that the "Impossible Faith" was dismissed, but the person dismissing it either did not understand it, or wanted to make a strawman, because he could not defeat the actual article.

I was being generous in assuming his ignorance. Would it have made you feel better if i had claimed he was being dishonest?


Don't call non-Christians dumb - its rather hypocritical, but then that shoe would fit, wouldn't it.

LOL... ok, then show us some evidence that you, Mike and Steven are not the

Three Blind Mice.

Hi Steve, nice to see some common sense being said for once.

ahhh, i see.... common sense is equal to building strawmen and slipping in a logical fallacy here and there.

LOL... it ain't the farmer's wife that cut off your tails.

You've done it to yourselves.

Psssttt... for your information, that was an insult, not an opinion. ;)


I like that... johnny taco

g'nite,
johnny taco

Anonymous said...

LPoT,

actually, these were things i said, and Fifi was quoting me, in order to respond to me:

"I'll put it in the simplest terms i can for you. Crucifixion was consider one of the most dishonorable ways one could die.
Claiming that you are God is the worst possible Sin you could make."


"The majority of the culture did not believe in resurrection."


I understand the confusion, though... it's such a pain on this blog to put in all the html tags.

I'll try to train the 3 Blind Mice, but please don't put a time constraint on me... i think it will be a huge task.

... smile...

johnny taco :)

Anonymous said...

First off Steven, you have to take all of the evidence together, and prove the whole thing doesn't fit.

The case is not Jesus' brother. The case is not the culture.
The case is not the maytres.
The case is not the existence of Christianity.

etc.

The case is each and everyone of those (and the ones in the "etcetera"), intertwined at times.

If the case was only "look ma, no bones"... that in itself falls apart at the hint of a stolen or hidden body.

If the case was only "His brother didn't believe, but now he does",
then your three card monty claim is sufficient (well, actually, could be sufficient).

Any one... if that's all it rested on, then you have a leg to stand one.

Go read the article again, this time, don't read it as if it is some Christian BS that is trying to convince you, read it as if you are trying to understand what is being said.

If you do that much, i'm sure that you will see the failure in your "watch the lady" analogy.


Perhaps that explains why so many Jews, right in the epicentre of where it all 'happened', did not convert.

You need to understand the culture better... and it was already pointed out to you....
Pay attention this time:

The Jews saw crucifixion as a most DISHONORABLE way to die.... actually, not just the Jews felt this way.

So, put your feet into a 1st century Jew's sandles...
You believe that God has said that He was going to send a warrior king (according to some, that is possible two people). You believe that that Warrior King is going to rid Israel of oppression.
The one person that you thought MIGHT be this Messiah (Annointed of God), has been put to death in a most dishonorable way.... the unclean of unclean. And now his followers are claiming He has risen from the dead-- something that you probably did not believe in (since you are still wearing those first century jewish sandles)

And He not only was claimed to be the awaited Messiah, He claimed to be God.

Now, with your sandles still on, why would you believe someone that claimed to be God, and who was killed (that should be enough right there), but not only killed, He was crucified.... and now there is claims that He is Risen?

You still believe in the Almighty, the Ancient of Days... the Everlasting to Everlasting.

Based only on this, there would be no reason for you to switch to this new religion...
And that's part of the point... Christianity should not have gotten off the ground.

Go read that article again.

Just like most people did not buy Joseph Smiths Golden Plates story.

You sure have an LDS fetish, don't you?

johnny taco