The Resurrection- How do you refute it?

[yoshi]

If I were to tell you that I recently shot down an Elvis-piloted UFO with a magic peashooter, would you believe me?

If you were like a Spanish friend of mine who can hit just about anything with his Gamo CF-20 air rifle, I might be inclined to believe you...but a peashooter (even a magic one)...THAT definitely would be pushing it...especially if it were the King flying the thing (pardon the ryhm). Besides, I saw him in a phone booth just yesterday so unless you downed his UFO (that would be the flying phone booth--which may or may not have Dr. Who's phone booth's capacity for interstellar and interdimentional travel) within the last 24 hours, I don't see how this could be possible...unless the UFO is capable of time travel of course, which I seriously doubt...but can't disprove .

Now, you're saying that some guy is/was capable of such feats as transmutation, water-walking, autoresurrection and appearing in puddles of sick in Des Moines diners, am I likely to believe you?

Again with the Elvis talk?

[Yes I know, when yoshi finally decides to post something it's completely idiotic and thread-jacking to top it all off . What can I say, I'm an idiot...God bless me.]


Just out of curiosity, why does God perform miracles such as the resurrection (according to Christian belief)? What's the point? To convert more su...I mean, people?

(Please pardon my ignorance of religion...among other things.)

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by 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?

Nobody who has the most passing understanding of the word science "worships", "believes" or otherwise puts faith in science.

According to science your extraterrestrial story is not impossible.

According to the entirely seperate beliefs of atheism, there is no God, so your story would not be accepted, though that would not amount to disproving it.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

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.



Oh lordy...

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
This proves nowt.

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

And guess what?

While science rejected flawed data and concepts.
Religion still jealously clings to outdated fantasy.

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

Check your sources before you quote, Bible only says 'In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth' leaving an indeterminate period for the creation of the universe. Now the 7 days of creation is another matter and you would be better advised using this as a talking point.

 

[Capulet]

How could a Resurrection have happened if Jesus never died

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
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.



Oh lordy...

Instead of being cute with the smileys go to my first post.

Only point I was trying to make is it is hypocritical to believe in one hand in evolution (theory) and the result of evolution which is the probable existance of highly advanced beings besides ourselves in the universe and dismissing the resurrection out of hand due to its 'implausibility'.

 

[betazed]

Originally posted by Civvin

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?

where lifeforms have reached an advanced stage, in all probability far exceeding our current level of advancement. Some of the things these extraterrestrials may be able to do with their advanced science would even to us in the 21st century seem 'miraculous'.

Ok as I said I am not an atheist but I'll bite. You are basically saying in a not so lucid way what Arthur Clarke put succinctly.

Any technology sufficiently ahead of us will be indistinguishable from magic.

Firstly, this point is borne out by history. If we time transported a man from say the Roman empire to now, what would his reaction be. He would see magic everywhere? Then would it be so unreasonable to imagine that a sufficiently advanced civilizations technology would look like magic to us?

Secondly, the above is a just a statement. It does not ask for proof or claim to be true. Noboby is claiming that we have found such a civilization. For all we know such a thing may not exist. However, if you claim that resurrection is true and God (or some extre-terrestrial civ) performed it then you have to prove it. As said repeatedly in this thread. The burden of proof lies with the claimer.

What is so hard to understand about this last statement?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Your first post is possible but it is not the SIMPLEST explanation. There's no point in rhetorically inventing a whole race of aliens which would have to race across the infinite distances of the universe to resurrect Jesus for no apparent purpose, when it is so much SIMPLER and more logical to assume that his followers were so grief-stricken that they invented the story of his resurrection.

Now we know why you don't like Occam's Razor.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Civvin
Check your sources before you quote, Bible only says 'In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth' leaving an indeterminate period for the creation of the universe. Now the 7 days of creation is another matter and you would be better advised using this as a talking point.

I care not about the bible.

I am making a point, and the collection of religious fallacies I cited are just to hammer the point home.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Science vs Reigion and Atheism vs religion are seperate arguments. Atheism vs Religion is silly because both are based in faith of something that cannot be proven.

Science cannot be used to find flaw in faith, but it can attempt to point out inconsistencies in specific assertions made by religion (Noah's arc, historical references etc). This could be applied equally to atheism, though there's less material to find fault with.

 

[aaminion00]

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

Your poor attempt at sarcasm is sadly wasted. Historical accounts do count as evidence, Montezuma did exist. What historical accounts can you find that Christ rose from the dead? Absolutely none at all. You will find many accounts saying that there are people who believed and claimed the Jesus rose from the dead, but absolutely no historical accounts that claim he did. At the same time you will find hundreds of historical accounts that show a man named Montezuma existed. If there is an account however, that says Montezuma was god-emperor, this is to be dismissed as nothing more than something the Aztecs may have believed in, but isn't true. In this same way we can look at this "evidecne" and the historical accounts of the ressurection. All history proves is that people, as in simple commoners and no serious writesrs of history, believed in a religious sense that Jesus came back to life. The only other "proof" of this is the bible, but the bible can be regarded as nothing more than myth. Why should we take the bible's word over that of other holy books such as the Quran, or faiths such as Greek Polytheism? There is no reason to, and hence, unless we are to start looking at all religious claims as evidence, the bible should not count. With that in mind, there is absolutely no evidence that Christ rose from the dead. Now, tell me why you believe he did.

 

[polymath]

Civvin -

"Since you do not believe in God, you must believe in evolution as the driving force in nature, and as such it follows that in the entire universe evolution must have produced other life forms and other planets where lifeforms have reached an advanced stage, in all probability far exceeding our current level of advancement. Some of the things these extraterrestrials may be able to do with their advanced science would even to us in the 21st century seem 'miraculous'...
You readily accept this as part of your 'religion', yet you smirk at the Bible and its description of God (an extraterrestrial), and God's manipulation of matter/time/space to perform 'miracles'."
- Civvin

Sigh. OK. Let's take it step by step.

"Since you do not believe in God, you must believe in evolution as the driving force in nature".
Firstly this isn't true. It's possible not to believe in God and not to believe in evolution. However, I do think evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have managed to accumulate, so let's continue.

"as such it follows that in the entire universe evolution must have produced other life forms and other planets where lifeforms have reached an advanced stage"
This doesn't follow. I suspect that advanced life may be exceptionally rare. We simply don't have any data to go on anyway. We may be the only advanced life in the cosmos, there may be plenty more examples out there. Who knows?

"in all probability far exceeding our current level of advancement"
You mean 'possibly', not 'in all probability'. But the Universe is so big, let's take what you've said so far as being certain (I'm not at all comfy with it, you are making a lot of assumptions, and as you can see I certainly do not readily accept it) and get to the nub.

"You readily accept this as part of your 'religion', yet you smirk at the Bible and its description of God (an extraterrestrial), and God's manipulation of matter/time/space to perform 'miracles'"
What religion? The religion of requiring things to make sense? I smirk at the Bible as the scrawlings of uneducated tribesmen. If God was some sort of alien, he'd be a strange one. Why single out one small middle Eastern tribe. Why would an alien send down his son (who is also himself) to take on our sins, which we assumed when a couple of us ate an apple. Sorry, at this point it becomes clear that your argument is balderdash. You would expect from God, if your hypothesis was to hold any water, at least an equation of some kind, or the legacy of something trifling like steam power.

You talk abouth the simpe logic of your post. Simple, yes. Logic, no.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Civvin
You might be better served sticking to things that are more easily disproved if you are looking to 'prove' things.

Atheists and similar types often make me chuckle.

Since you do not believe in God, you must believe in evolution as the driving force in nature, and as such it follows that in the entire universe evolution must have produced other life forms and other planets where lifeforms have reached an advanced stage, in all probability far exceeding our current level of advancement. Some of the things these extraterrestrials may be able to do with their advanced science would even to us in the 21st century seem 'miraculous'.

You readily accept this as part of your 'religion', yet you smirk at the Bible and its description of God (an extraterrestrial), and God's manipulation of matter/time/space to perform 'miracles'.

The brain is a computer, an organic one to be sure, and highly complex however it operates on basic principles. Who can say that someone with advanced science could not recreate the human body (just look at some of the primitive work scientists are currently doing in genetics) and imprint upon the brain the 'stored' pattern of memory and personality that a person possessed before they died, i.e. a ressurection.

Yes that is possable, probable no....possable yes. So I am willing to believe your claim in this instance IF you provide me some proof. That's all I ask is proof, I do not deny that this is possable but I won't believe you till you show me some proof.

 

[Civvin]

Good one Pilate that cracked me up although that wasn't the point and you know it

This thread starts with a fellow asking athiests 'how do you refute the ressurrection' and shortly followed by a fellow saying 'we know its hogwash'

Atheism or disbelief in the existance of god REQUIRES a belief in evolution as the driving force in the universe, evolution is an unproven theory, albeit a strong one, ergo atheism is a 'religion' that requires faith, or belief in things unproven.

If evolution is the driving force in the universe it follows that
there is a high probability that higher lifeforms exist with abilities that would seem to us to be 'miraculous'. It is not far from the realm of possibility to imagine that a ressurection might be highly possible given an advanced technology.

Basically all the 'your generalizing', 'your an idiot to believe in the accuracy of the bible' (never said that myself), all the cute little sarcasms (which are quite funny and I applaud you as I enjoy sarcasm quite a bit), are smoke and mirrors to hide the discomfort some of you feel about the following indisputable facts.

A. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION
B. It is HYPOCRITICAL to dismiss any persons belief on the sole
and I mean SOLE basis of IMPLAUSIBILITY when your OWN
belief system allows for such implausable occurences and in
fact RELIES upon them.

 

[Shadylookin]

how do i refute it, using logic

here's an example of my thought process

the bible is 100% true word of God- therefore the gospels are 100% true(still with me, I know it's tough)- but we have contradictions in the gospels(even those that were hand picked by the church let alone those that were left out)- therefore if the bible is really the word of God then God is contradicting himself and does not know how it really happend- therefore God is not omniscient- therefore if he doesn't know everything then God is not omnipotent- therefore God is a liar-therefore why should i trust him to begin with.

the bible is not 100% truth-then it is not the word of God-then it is the word of man- man is influenced by his own hopes and beliefs and is know for lying and prone to giving and recieving misinformation- therefore he should not be trusted if the story seems like a lie- someone tells you a man that also happends to be God is crucified and comes back to life and it also has many things claimed by other religions of which you know the other religions are lies- You do not believe them

Goldie locks and the 3 bears, Little Red Ridding Hood, and the bible are all just fairy tales in my eyes. As long as you aren't going to perform any purges or inquisitions you can believe what you want though as it is all irrelevant from my point of view.

 

[Maj]

Atheism is not a religion.

 

[betazed]

Originally posted by Civvin

B. It is HYPOCRITICAL to dismiss any persons belief on the sole
and I mean SOLE basis of IMPLAUSIBILITY when your OWN
belief system allows for such implausable occurences and in
fact RELIES upon them.

Civvin, please refer to this thread (or for that matter any other thread). Where has PP, I, or any other posters of our ilk, have espoused a belief that allows for implausible occurences and in fact RELIES on them?

Please show one. And I will happily concede the point.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Maj
Atheism is not a religion.

Allow me to reinforce that.

The 'atheism is a religion' tactic was made by religionists to attempt to even the playing field.

But sorry, the burden of truth remains.

 

[Azadre]

Jesus sent a double onto the cross to fool his enemies.

 

[polymath]

"Atheism or disbelief in the existance of god REQUIRES a belief in evolution as the driving force in the universe, evolution is an unproven theory, albeit a strong one, ergo atheism is a 'religion' that requires faith, or belief in things unproven."

This is untrue, completely untrue. If you were born on an island, and had never heard of God, you could be an atheist, right? And you would never even have a clue about evolution, right? So you're wrong about this, right? Atheism DOES NOT REQUIRE a belief in evolution. By all means, come at it from a different angle, but your current argument holds no water.