The Resurrection- How do you refute it?

[Goober]

Er, what's this "Resurruction" business?

I may be atheist, and I may believe that religion is [CENSORED], but I am not anti-religion, I just don't like all their ideas.

I am not technically rabid, just a bit crazy . . .

 

[betazed]

Originally posted by Giotto
Then you must believe that much of history never happened! Just to pick a random person in history... Montezuma... what proof is there of his existance not counting anything anyone has said or anything written down, since those are automatically discounted. Do you have his body? How do you know it is his body and not some other persons? The fact that it is Montezuma doesn't really matter to what I'm saying, I'm just trying to illustrate that if you think that nothing exists without conclusive exact evidence, a TON of stuff in history never happened.

I do not know much about Montezuma but let's take this case as an example.

The guy is Aztec right? We have a lot of material evidence about Aztec civilization don't we? I mean entire cities and such. So the Aztec civilization is easy to believe. Within those remains we may find evidence of a King called Montezuma. If such evidence is found then well and good. If not then Montezuma is a hypotheses only. Simple. There are no two ways about it. It is upto the historians to provide evidence for the hypothese of Montezuma.

Maybe some history buffs over here can fill in the evidence for Montezuma. My knowledge of history is zilch.

 

[Akka]

I just have been resurrected. My best friend can vouch for me.

Prove this is false.

When you are able to do it, I'll prove you that the Resurrection of the Christ was false.

Until you're able to do it, you should refrain from asking idiotic questions.

 

[De Lorimier]

Oh my!! Akka resurrected?!? Let me be the first one to congratulate you and to begin to worship you. To whom do I make the check?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Civvin

Since you do not believe in God, you must believe in evolution as the driving force in nature

Evolution is a theory, one that I find persuasive, but not something I would assume to be a fact. Science does not require faith, atheism does. Being an atheist does not mean that you must subscribe to any particular scientific theory.

Originally posted by Civvin

Atheism and its handmaiden evolution are nothing more than a 'religion' of a different stripe, requiring as much faith, hope, and belief as that of any 'fool' who prays to invisible superheroes.

Personally I don't see atheism as a religion, because there is no one set of beliefs that constitute atheism. It certainly does require faith, and in that sense is very much like any religion you would care to mention. I certainly don't consider a theist a fool, we share a faith in something we can't prove.

Science is however a completely different matter. No faith is required, a theory consists of pieces of irrefutable evidence and a statement of any unproven assumptions. Anyone who assumes evoltion to be fact is simply mistaken. The evidence however is pretty convincing, and it explains many natural phenomena that other thories cannot.

Originally posted by Civvin

I'm not knocking evolution or atheism, just pointing out its easy to go down the same path you criticize religious people for and which you oftentimes do.

You might not be knocking evoltion or atheism, but you are mistakenly equating them, as well as making generalisations about atheists that I strive not to make about theists. I don't have to disprove God, I consider it to be inherently impossible.

 

[Civvin]

What I don't understand about atheists is their insecurity.

Now I can understand them opposing religious people on the basis of much of the things they do 'in God's name', but really how does it hurt you that some people believe in the divine.

It seems to me that just like many other 'movements', athiests want not merely acceptance but approval and justification of their belief, and why this is so is hard for me to comprehend.

Ah yes Occam's Razor that touchstone, that holy grail of athiests and higher thinkers everywhere.

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

or in another form

all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is the most logical

These scientific types make great airs about the 'scientific process' and about using logic and evidence to 'prove' things scientifically, and mock people for not being able to 'prove' that God exists.

THE FACT REMAINS, no one can 'prove' God dosen't exist and until you do you can blabber off Occam's Razor till your blue in the face and it dosen't mean anything.

The Big Bang theory states that the universe was created from a single primeval atom, did that atom jump into existance? Or shall we ascribe the simplest explanation possible and say that a being not of this dimension gassssp 'created' it.

Instead of debating the metaphysical and unprovable, which is pointless take those Bibles out and bash believers over the head with all the things they do in contrivance to 'God's word'. Its much more enjoyable and effective.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Giotto
I think that this type of logic you would have to say that nothing ever happened, since nothing ever in history has ever happened exactly as it has before. That's like saying that since no president has ever been reportidly assasinated in Dallas in a car except JFK, the assasination of JFK really didn't happen.

Getting shot in Dallas is plausible, especially if you're the President.

 

[Goober]

Oh, I get it, this "Ressurection" business is religious, never mind.

I'm leaving now, today is not the day for a [MODERATOR ACTION THAT I CANNOT STATE]

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by Enkidu Warrior

You might not be knocking evoltion or atheism, but you are mistakenly equating them, as well as making generalisations about atheists that I strive not to make about theists. I don't have to disprove God, I consider it to be inherently impossible.

I'm not equating them at all, merely pointing out that atheism cannot exist without a belief in evolution, evolution as you yourself stated is not proven fact, but remains a theory, albeit a fairly strong one, ergo atheism is a faith based belief.

 

[stormbind]

Scientific evidence for the resurrection were removed with ascension to heaven: The resurrection and heaven cannot be considered independently of one another.

True scientists can only say that they haven't seen the evidence, thus it is neither true or false.

To find the evidence the scientist must ascend to heaven but as they cannot do that until they die, they cannot yet give an answer.

Final answer from an honest scientist must surely be "wait and see".

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Civvin
What I don't understand about atheists is their insecurity.

Ok, guy, let's put it all at its right place, would you ?

1) It's not an atheist that started the thread and tried anti-logical reasoning to "prove" his point.

2) So far, the answers from atheists have been either reversing the question (and, strangely, not getting any answer to that... What a coincidence), either explaining why they didn't believed Resurrection.

3) For now, you're the one mocking and showing arrogant contempt (isn't pride a sin, BTW ?) for the other side.


And now you say that it's ATHEISTS that are strangely insecure ?

Well, have a look in the mirror. Say hi, kettle ^^

 

[betazed]

Originally posted by Civvin
What I don't understand about atheists is their insecurity.

Now I can understand them opposing religious people on the basis of much of the things they do 'in God's name', but really how does it hurt you that some people believe in the divine.

It seems to me that just like many other 'movements', athiests want not merely acceptance but approval and justification of their belief, and why this is so is hard for me to comprehend.

Ah yes Occam's Razor that touchstone, that holy grail of athiests and higher thinkers everywhere.

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

or in another form

all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is the most logical

These scientific types make great airs about the 'scientific process' and about using logic and evidence to 'prove' things scientifically, and mock people for not being able to 'prove' that God exists.

THE FACT REMAINS, no one can 'prove' God dosen't exist and until you do you can blabber off Occam's Razor till your blue in the face and it dosen't mean anything.

The Big Bang theory states that the universe was created from a single primeval atom, did that atom jump into existance? Or shall we ascribe the simplest explanation possible and say that a being not of this dimension gassssp 'created' it.

Instead of debating the metaphysical and unprovable, which is pointless take those Bibles out and bash believers over the head with all the things they do in contrivance to 'God's word'. Its much more enjoyable and effective.

Civvin, you showed your ignorance by that post. Don't worry. It is hip and cool to be ignorant nowadays. Just because I mentioned Occam's Razor you equated me to an atheist. Sigh!

For the 5th time now in this forum. I am not an atheist. I believe in God. But I am perfectly comfortable and understand and respect Curt's viewpoint for if nothing it is logical, well thought out and consistent (something I cannot say about many people on this board).

 

[Giotto]

Originally posted by aaminion00
Evidence from Montezuma includes hundreds of Aztec mentions of his name, and a fairly realistic, if biased in favor of themselves, Spanish account of their invasion of his country. It should also be mentioned that this Spanish account does not include walking on water, coming back from the dead, or giving back sight to blind people.

I'm sorry, none of that counts, because it's all historical accounts, not evidence. Sorry folks, Montezuma didn't exist.



@betazed- Just because an aztec civilization existed, doesn't mean Montezuma did. I'm sure accounts of King Montezuma are all over the place in Aztec lands, but accounts are worthless according to your own words. We need a body of Montezuma to prove he existed, and even then we won't know because it could be a fake body or just a commoner from the time period dressed up like a king! Therefore, montezuma did not exist.

@akka- I didn't know questioning things was idiotic. Maybe you just blindly follow what you are told because you don't know any better, but some people like to have intelligent discussions about things so they can form their own conclusions. Why don't you go make a thread titled "post your favorite color here" if you think asking questions is idiotic, and leave it to the people who like to understand things about the world, and who are open to other's viewpoints.

 

[Giotto]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Getting shot in Dallas is plausible, especially if you're the President.

No, it's not plausible. Give me 50 accounts of presidents being shot in Dallas. If it only happened once, it couldn't have happened.

 

[Akka]

@akka- I didn't know questioning things was idiotic. Maybe you just blindly follow what you are told because you don't know any better, but some people like to have intelligent discussions about things so they can form their own conclusions. Why don't you go make a thread titled "post your favorite color here" if you think asking questions is idiotic, and leave it to the people who like to understand things about the world, and who are open to other's viewpoints.

Wow. What a good amount of hot air.

You know, if you wish to act as someone who ask "intelligent questions", you should avoid to ask to people how they would disprove something you can't even prove, and you would consider impossible for any other cases than that you pre-accepted dogma.

Keep the lecturing for when you're not the first to be subject to it.

And I still wait for your rebuff about the fact I've been resurrected. Something tell me I can wait it forever, though.

 

[betazed]

Originally posted by Civvin

The Big Bang theory states that the universe was created from a single primeval atom, did that atom jump into existance? Or shall we ascribe the simplest explanation possible and say that a being not of this dimension gassssp 'created' it.

May I suggest what I seem to be suggesting everyday. Please Go read up on physics first before making ignorant statements like these. You will project a much more credible and coherent persona that way.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Giotto
No, it's not plausible. Give me 50 accounts of presidents being shot in Dallas. If it only happened once, it couldn't have happened.

There have only been 43 Presidents. 1 in 43 is quite high for a cause of death.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Civvin
I'm not equating them at all, merely pointing out that atheism cannot exist without a belief in evolution, evolution as you yourself stated is not proven fact, but remains a theory, albeit a fairly strong one, ergo atheism is a faith based belief.

Atheism in no way requires a belief in evolution. An atheist believes that there is no god, they can think whatever they want about science. There is no "belief" in science anyway, only theories upon which predictions are made.

We are agreed that atheism requires faith, but you are mistaken to assume this is a belief in science. I believe in humanities responsiblility for its own actions. I am a scientist, but I don't "believe" in science, or in any particular theory. I consider evolution to be the most probable explanation for human development, but I don't "believe" in evolution.

 

[De Lorimier]

Do you realise that you're the one who should be coming up with evidence of ressurection Giotto?
You write about the non-existence of historical figure and you ask for others to prove to you something you, yourself, can't prove.
Can't you see there's something wrong in this?
Montezuma, Napoleon, Victoria, Abe Lincoln: numerous proofs of existence.
Ressurection: still waiting for your proof.

 

[Halcyon]

'Giotto', you're obviously rather religious. May I ask you: Do you believe that mankind is unfailingly honest? The tenets of religion are not beliefs in the word of god or gods, but in the word of the people who wrote those words down. You place your trust in those who went before you - those who wrote and rewrote the books, and those who ran and run the churches. What if it was all made up by Constantine, Paul or Elvis? Do you trust any of them so?

That religious beliefs cannot be disproven doesn't make them right, or even sane. The only proof is a personal appearance, and that won't happen if the person in question is nonexistent. Your problem is that you only believe because you've been told to believe.. and who by?