The Resurrection- How do you refute it?

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Civvin


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'

No we replied that the burden of proof lies with those claiming their was a resurection

Originally posted by Civvin
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.

Nope, Atheism does not require belief of evoltuion, BUT Since evolution has proven to be possable, probable, logical, and has plenty of evidence from many sources to back up it's claims. Many atheists accept that it is the best explanation for the complex life we have today.

Originally posted by Civvin
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.

Once again, possable, but where is the proof. It is possable that there are giant pink Elephants living under the surface of Pluto, but before I believe there are I would want to see some evidence first.

Originally posted by Civvin
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.

What? Tell me again why not believing in God requires belief in implausable occurences???

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by 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.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, and as such requires faith (and could therefore be called a religion depending on your terminology). No more, no less. Evolution is a nice little scientific theory which is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY RELATED to atheism. I'm an atheist. I do not believe in evolution. Do you deny my existence? Instead of us simply trading contrary statements I would appreciate it if you backed up your definition of Atheism.

A. This is a matter of terminology. It has faith in common with religion but little else.

B. I'm not convinced of your wording but it would indeed be hypocritical for an atheist to dismiss the belief in god on the basis that it has not been proven. I don't think plausibility comes into it personally. Plausibility suggests a scientific angle, which is a seperate issue. Science does not contain the answers, there's no beliefs to put your faith in. In this way it clashes with atheism just as much as religion, but atheism as a single belief is harder to fault than a religion that comes complete with a book full of claims to find fault with.

 

[CurtSibling]

Civvin - would you accuse an anti-racist of nazi conduct?

That is what you are a saying about atheism being a religion...in principle.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

As for "atheism=belief" there is a fine line to tread. When you start distorting historical facts and things like that to support your belief [Curt "believes" that Jesus never existed] then I think it's fair game to call that a religion. However, rational-atheism, that is, assuming that there's no God until one can be proven, is not a belief, it's logic. If I say, "There are no aliens with scaly green horns on Mars," is that a belief? Are you going to call that a religion?

Don't see why God is any different.

 

[Maj]

Not believing in something does not require faith.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Civvin - would you accuse an anti-racist of nazi conduct?

That is what you are a saying about atheism being a religion...in principle.

No, atheism is the belief that there is no god. Nothing about that is anti-religion it's merely a different belief.

I know many atheists are anti-religion, but it's not a constant. I for one certainly am not.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Maj
Not believing in something does not require faith.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, a belief which by definition can never be proven. As such it requires faith.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
As for "atheism=belief" there is a fine line to tread. When you start distorting historical facts and things like that to support your belief [Curt "believes" that Jesus never existed] then I think it's fair game to call that a religion. However, rational-atheism, that is, assuming that there's no God until one can be proven, is not a belief, it's logic. If I say, "There are no aliens with scaly green horns on Mars," is that a belief? Are you going to call that a religion?

Don't see why God is any different.

Oh please.

A powerful conviction does not equate a religion.

Don't make me dredge up an Oxford dictionary definition on you, it would be bad for your cred.

Some religionists seem to want to make everything a thin-air worship facade like what they themselves engage in.


Spare me such silliness, really.

 

[stormbind]

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?

Precisely. By the same logic, no scientist can argue against the resurrection.

So why are people posting in the name of science and discrediting it's good name.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
However, rational-atheism, that is, assuming that there's no God until one can be proven, is not a belief, it's logic.

And it's also known as agnosticism.

 

[yoshi]

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

I think you're giving people too much credit. Unlike people like yourself, many within the scientific 'community' blindly accept the doctrines of empirical scientific method as being irrefuteable. For the most part, it works as it did for those who developed this mode of thinking in 17th and 18th century Europe. But, it has a failing that simply cannot be addressed and that is that all cannot be known (i.e. the only way you will know anything absolutley is to know absolutely everything). Thus, you will never really be able to prove or disprove anything. You can merly create the illusion of doing so. In the end, you may have a truth grounded more sturdily on "reality" but it will still be merly a truth, not fact.

These people who endlessly ask for proof are asking for the impossible. It's essentially the equivilant of saying, "that which one does not know does not exist until it has been proven to exist," but nothing can be conclusivly proven to exist (no more than you can prove that you are awake and not just dreaming all of this).

Okay, now where the **** was I going with this? Oh, right. So if you look at it that way, history is nothing but an illusion. Since it cannot be fact, it is a form of fiction. It is but the interpretation of events through the filter that is the human brain and no amount of obssesivly empirical scientific analysis will change that.

Having said that, I think the 'facts' speak for themsleves: Jesus was, is and will always be gay...not that there's anything wrong with that. ( yoshi waits for endless stream of smilies from PP while being flamed by Christians who did not understand that the post was partially meant to be in favor of the spiritual aspects of religion. )

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by stormbind
Precisely. By the same logic, no scientist can argue against the resurrection.

So why are people posting in the name of science and discrediting it's good name.

What you fail to grasp is that while so-called wise men from yore did not know it all,
the following generations of learned types ditched the old ideas and refined them to match new data.

Hence why you now are typing using a product of science.
Or did god make your PC?

Let us be exacting:
The 'resurrection' is a fable, made up to inspire those who value such JC fan-fiction.

But!
Have the religionists updated their dogma to suit a changing wold?
have they ditched aspects to accept diversity - no.

They only change and revise to better exact control upon the flock.

 

[andrewgprv]

So since I don't belive in the Easter Bunny or Santa or Green Aliens who anal probe farmers. I guess my non belief in each of these is a religon???

 

[Halcyon]

Atheism is rather a broad term, you know. There are plenty of atheistic religions around - shinto, animism, shamanism, confucianism, bah'ai, whatever. The term also applies to those who lack a belief in the existence of a deity or deities. In this case, it is not a religion, but a lack of one.

I suggest pursuing a more reasonable argument, if you know how to.

 

[Maj]

Originally posted by Enkidu Warrior
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, a belief which by definition can never be proven. As such it requires faith.

By that logic I must have faith in an infinite amount of disbeliefs.

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
What you fail to grasp is that while so-called wise men from yore did not know it all,
the following generations of learned types ditched the old ideas and refined them to match new data.

Hence why you now are typing using a product of science.
Or did god make your PC?

Let us be exacting:
The 'resurrection' is a fable, made up to inspire those who value such JC fan-fiction.

But!
Have the religionists updated their dogma to suit a changing wold?
have they ditched aspects to accept diversity - no.

They only change and revise to better exact control upon the flock.

This is sort of funny because I share similar views on religion in general and I probably have more in common with some of those I am debating here than differences but still I must stand FIRM, you cannot PROVE its a fable any more than you can PROVE that god does not exist. To hold the other side to the same standard, they cannot PROVE god exists.

On the flip, you cannot disprove god exists and more than they can disprove god does not exist, so once again we reach a great impasse in the land of the metaphysical.

I understand the rage people have about religious folks especially that number of them that try to force their beliefs on others through rule of law.

I will give up some ground on the atheism is a religion, because I try to have an open mind unlike some it seems, and after checking several dictionary entries all refer to 'supernatural being' as being part of the requirement and I will not attempt to stretch 'Mother Nature' into the God of athiests.

I still say its hypocrisy to deny things on basis of implausibility when your own belief system requires belief in implausible, unprovable, events, and I will say that till I die.

GOOD DAY ALL and thanks for a great topic!

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Halcyon
Atheism is rather a broad term, you know. There are plenty of atheistic religions around - shinto, animism, shamanism, confucianism, bah'ai, whatever. The term also applies to those who lack a belief in the existence of a deity or deities. In this case, it is not a religion, but a lack of one.

I suggest pursuing a more reasonable argument, if you know how to.

There are an infinite number of religions that could form out of atheism, it is only a single belief, so on that point I'd agree with you.

However, atheism is more than the lack of any religion. It's not the belief in nothing, it is the specific belief that there is no god. This belief is not a religion in of itself but it can form the basis of one.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

It's really quite simple, disbelief in the nonexistence of X is not a religion unless X is scientifically supported. Belief in the existence of X is always a religion unless X is scientifically supported.

 

[Civvin]

And in case any were wondering this is my personal belief ala webster

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

 

[Halcyon]

Perhaps it would save confusion to term religion as something like 'a developed unified belief-structure conformed to by a number of people', and not as a single belief. Otherwise, we're all incredibly religious because we don't believe that the sky is pink, or that stars are circles of radius two feet imprinted on the underbelly of H'thar the All-Encompassing.