The Resurrection- How do you refute it?

[Pontiuth Pilate]

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.

That was an amazing display of ignorance.

Occam's Razor is not some arcane law, it is merely a another way of restating something that is just COMMON SENSE. "The simplest explanation is the most plausible".

If scientists make "great airs" about "the scientific process", it's because it works. Unlike, I might add, chanting, burning incense, banging gongs, human sacrifice, confessionals, prayer, or anything else religious people all over the world throughout time have thought up.

THE FACT REMAINS, no one can 'prove' God dosen't exist

Of course not. And, with equal logic, nobody can "prove" that your thoughts are not secretly being controlled by realtors from outer space.

I hope you see how ridiculous it is to put the burden of PROOF on those trying to DISPROVE something?

Nobody NEEDS to disprove God's existence. Just as with Martians, Ted Koppel's brain, etc - until we see proof of it, it's more logical to assume it doesn't exist.

 

[Maj]

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.

Dying from a gunshot wound is plausible. Resurrection is not.

 

[Giotto]

Akka,
first of all, I have no pre-accepted dogma. I am not a christian nor was I raised as one. That is one ignorant assumption you have made. Please refer me to the point in my post where I declared that the resurrection happened. All I did was ask people how they personally came to the conclusion that it didn't.

As you know, a lot of atheists are on these boards. As an atheist, they naturally do not believe in the resurrection. I am asking them why. What about this is unintelligent or idiotic, I do not know. I do not presume to know everything, so I ask people's opinions. Some intelligent people like to post good, polite resonses to my questions (such as betazed). Other people like to dismiss my questions as idiotic without answering them and all the while making many unfounded assumptions about me and my beliefs.

 

[Halcyon]

There's no damn reason to believe in it. That's your answer.

 

[Civvin]

Sorry if you think im prideful, anyway I don't have a holy book to tell me thats a sin.

As soon as this guy posted this thread several posts sarcastically mocked the resurrection, I'm not gonna get into a quotefest mainly because I don't mind sarcasm, it dosen't irritate me and it is often quite humurous, and because I don't really care if Christ rose from the dead or not.

People who are thin skinned and easily offended really shouldn't cruise forums like these. Its for debate and diatribe and really besides some mild sarcasm, no personal hostility has been flying until your post akka.

To betazed, who mentioned Occam's Razor, my comment wasn't directed at you. As far as generalizations go, let me say this, everyone and I mean everyone in real life who I have had a debate with on this or similar subjects pulls out that old rag as if its some magic mantra and it dosent prove or disprove a thing. Its a neat parlor trick some guy named Occam came up with thats more philosophy than anything, a heuristic argument, that is admittedly somewhat helpful in the scientific method.

Hehe while this was going to press Potiunh Pilate has excoriated me, once again championing the greatness of the razor.

An interesting point can be made concerning occam's razor by borrowing the use of your namesake Pilate.

Back in the day one of the old rags the atheist types always trotted out to disprove Jesus existance and the Bible in general was the fact that NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE existed for there ever being a Pontius Pilate besides the mention in the Bible. Since a mention in the Bible dosent mean anythign to the users of Occam's Razor, obviously the great and wise razor says that the 'simplest explanation' is that Pilate did not exist.

Then in the 60's sometime, they uncovered a roman building in caesarea, I believe it was a stone from the amphiteatre with LO!
the inscription Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea on it. And since then much more evidence has been uncovered to verify his existance. And so the religion haters among the atheists (dont wanna 'generalize' anyone) move on to the next thing that they can use Occam's Razor on.

Occam's Razor is riddled with deficiencies.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

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.

I'm not insecure in the slightest, my faith is absolute. Of course it doesn't hurt me that others believe in God. The existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. Why would I be hurt by someone putting their faith in something just as unknown as that which I do?

There is no "atheist movement", we don't have a secret club nor any shared agenda. My belief is personal. I require no approval. I demand equal respect and protection under the law, but I feel no need to "enlighten" theists.

Stop lumping us all together.

 

[stormbind]

Enkidu, evolution is a fine theory but simply not related to the discussion. Evolution does not conflict with the word of Christ.

Can you think of a scientific theory that does clash with the statements of Christ?

 

[Akka]

Giotto :

Why people would not believe in Resurrection ?
Well, there is several answers.

First : if I told you I was resurrected, would you believe it ? If not, why ?
By answering this question, you just answered your own.

Second : how many resurrection have you witenessed ? Heard of ? Among the ones you have heard of, how many have been from reliable sources ?

Third : considering what you know about the world, what is more probable : that some guy came back from the deads, or that it was a mere invention/metaphore/twisting of the fact by the teller of the time ?

Fourth : religion says that Resurrection is possible. Science says there is no known way to do it, and certainly not in these times.
Considering the reliability of religious predictions and scientific prediction, which one opinion sounds more plausible ?

 

[MrPresident]

The reason I don't believe in the resurrection is the same reason I don't believe David Copperfield can actually pass through the Great Wall of China. Because magic isn't real.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by stormbind
Enkidu, evolution is a fine theory but simply not related to the discussion.

I would tend to agree but many people have misconceptions about what atheism is and I feel obliged to try and dispel them.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Akka

Fourth : religion says that Resurrection is possible. Science says there is no known way to do it, and certainly not in these times.
Considering the reliability of religious predictions and scientific prediction, which one opinion sounds more plausible ?

It wasn't that long ago that science said flight was impossible, or that metal boats could not float.

Does this mean the laws of physics change with time?

 

[betazed]

Originally posted by stormbind
Does this mean the laws of physics change with time?

No. Our understanding of the laws of physics does. {I know your qiuestion was rhetorical}

{BTW, the laws of physics maybe changing with the passage of time but that is besides the point. }

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by stormbind
It wasn't that long ago that science said flight was impossible, or that metal boats could not float.

Does this mean the laws of physics change with time?

Science if applied correctly would never say that anything was impossible, including the resurrection and the existence of God. Science is not a matter of faith, it is not an alternative to religion, nor does it form the basis of atheism.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

It wasn't that long ago that science said flight was impossible, or that metal boats could not float.

Does this mean the laws of physics change with time?

They didn't say it was impossible, they said it was unfeasible. Obviously flight is possible - birds! But scientists couldn't figure out a way to make humans fly. That's because they lacked technology, not knowledge.

"Scientists" used to say that the sun revolves around the earth; is this because of a massive shift in the solar system, or incompetence on the part of the scientists?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
"Scientists" used to say that the sun revolves around the earth; is this because of a massive shift in the solar system, or incompetence on the part of the scientists?

I'd put it down to being burned alive if you said otherwise.

 

[Civvin]

A most excellent point Stormbind

I find it so refreshing to see the common thread of human nature

Just as 'religious' folks get angry when you point out flaws in their beliefs, so also do those who worship at the altar of science get ruffled when you point out the shortcomings of their faith.

Please stop accusing people of generalizations, people do that when they are losing an argument to divert attention.

I do not know any of you personally and to use the word YOU would be inappropriate and might be percieved as a personal attack. While I understand there are many stripes of atheists, just as there are many strips of Christians, I only have my personal experiences with athiests, of which there are not a few, to base my comments on. And yes I think the way I have described athiests attitudes describes their mainstream, if not the few posting in this thread.

None of the athiest side has yet made an intelligent response to my first post, with the extraterrestial analogy, perhaps the fact that you cannot overcome the simple logic of that post is why?

 

[Halcyon]

Science itself is harmed by absolute beliefs. For instance, such and such is impossible or definately true. Science is an ongoing process of rationalising the universe in pursuit of truth. Science does not profess to be correct in its entirety. People, on the other hand, tend to believe in absolutes, which confuses the matter. Very few people are completely free of dogma, be it religion or that total energy is exactly equal to mass times the speed of light squared. The best we can do is theorise - the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution. Constantly being corrected and updated as new discoveries are made. Can you say the same about religion?

 

[polymath]

If you tell me you believe in the resurrection, the inerrancy of the bible, Noah's Ark or whatever, all I can say is that if you believe that, you'll believe anything. That's a fact. You must have a complete lack of critical faculties to believe that stuff.

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by Halcyon
Science itself is harmed by absolute beliefs. For instance, such and such is impossible or definately true. Science is an ongoing process of rationalising the universe in pursuit of truth. Science does not profess to be correct in its entirety. People, on the other hand, tend to believe in absolutes, which confuses the matter. Very few people are completely free of dogma, be it religion or that total energy is exactly equal to mass times the speed of light squared. The best we can do is theorise - the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution. Constantly being corrected and updated as new discoveries are made. Can you say the same about religion?

Absolute beliefs are what make religion so dangerous. Or I should say, the effect absolute beliefs have upon people who believe them make religion so dangerous.

I never jumped in this thread defending religion or the Bible, merely pointing out the double standard those mocking the resurrection account just because of its implausability have.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by stormbind
It wasn't that long ago that science said flight was impossible, or that metal boats could not float.

Does this mean the laws of physics change with time?

This proves nowt.

Religionists believe a son of a god performed miracles and the world is 6000 years old,
and the Earth was originally lived in by a man, a woman and a snake.

And guess what?

While science rejected flawed data and concepts.
Religious groups still jealously cling to outdated fantasy.

Sorry, stormbind.
Kind of leaves your accusations blown to smithereens there.