The Resurrection- How do you refute it?

[Halcyon]

It requires an awful lot less faith to believe in the most likely situation than to believe in an unprovable and irrational and improbable hypothesis, such as theism. Much, much less. More faith is required to believe in things that nearly everyone believes in, such as 'I probably won't get hit by a comet' and 'I'm not just a brain in a tank, dreaming that I'm real'. Do you class these as religious tenets?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

A great deal of evidence exists to inform you that getting hit by a comet is very unlikely. Though you could say that you are putting faith in it not happening, it's not much of a leap of faith as I'm sure we'll all agree.

Evidence that god does/doesn't exist is hard to come by, and is likely to be tainted by the beliefs of the author.

You can believe that less faith is required to believe that there is no god, I don't know since I could never contemplate believing in god.

 

[Iggy]

@Enkidu. I consider myself to belong to no faiths and have none. I do not believe in any gods. Using your logic if I said that I absolutely did not believe in the Easter Bunny would that make me have faith in None Bunnyism?
I suppose it depends on how you say it. If you believe there is no god - that requires faith in atheism.
I do not believe there are any gods - that requires no having faith in gods' existing.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that as it down to one's interpretation. Personally I am not really bothered about the label as I feel no great need to be badged.

@IglooDude. I think the fact that as an atheist I questioned the word "faith" in the post above yours shows that it is impractical to group atheists and we individually have our own take on it.
Anyway cant stop, I am on my way to the Church of the Latter Day CurtSiblings.

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by Iggy
@Enkidu. I consider myself to belong to no faiths and have none. I do not believe in any gods. Using your logic if I said that I absolutely did not believe in the Easter Bunny would that make me have faith in None Bunnyism?
I suppose it depends on how you say it. If you believe there is no god - that requires faith in atheism.
I do not believe there are any gods - that requires no having faith in gods' existing.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that as it down to one's interpretation. Personally I am not really bothered about the label as I feel no great need to be badged.

@IglooDude. I think the fact that as an atheist I questioned the word "faith" in the post above yours shows that it is impractical to group atheists and we individually have our own take on it.
Anyway cant stop, I am on my way to the Church of the Latter Day CurtSiblings.

Is the Easter Bunny considered a higher power? If so than your None Bunnyism is merely a sect of Atheism.

The point Enkidu makes is a valid one, IMHO. I personally have called myself an atheist in the past but upon consideration I've been mentally lazy and will try to remember that I am an agnostic and not an atheist, strictly speaking.

I'm surprised CurtSibling hasn't weighed in on atheism vs agnosticism, unless he has and I've missed it.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Iggy
@Enkidu. I consider myself to belong to no faiths and have none. I do not believe in any gods. Using your logic if I said that I absolutely did not believe in the Easter Bunny would that make me have faith in None Bunnyism?
I suppose it depends on how you say it. If you believe there is no god - that requires faith in atheism.
I do not believe there are any gods - that requires no having faith in gods' existing.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that as it down to one's interpretation. Personally I am not really bothered about the label as I feel no great need to be badged.

We all have our own take on these issues, I don't expect that we can all be put into convenient groups.

I don't think believing that the easter bunny does not exist requires much of a leap of faith. It's not without logic to suggest that god may exist but we will never have direct evidence or proof of it. Can you say the same of the easter bunny?

On what do you base your not believing in god? If it is merely lack of evidence to support gods existence, then couldn't you change your mind overnight if you were presented with evidence? Doesn't that make you agnostic?

If however you have an actual belief that god doesn't exist regardless of your inability to prove it, then aren't you placing faith in atheism? If you have any actual evidence that god doesn't exist besides your personal beliefs I'd love to hear them.

 

[Iggy]

I looked at an amount of the information available, concidered it and came to a logical concluction. I did not study atheism and found faith in it. My concluction is that there are no gods / supreme being, I cannot offer any proof to back that up. As it is my proofless conclution I cannot gaurentee I am right, it is my nature not to close my mind and to have blind faith on any matter.
Maybe the Easter Bunny was a bad example. Here is another one, to me it is logical that life intelligent exists on another planet. I dont have faith in that, it is merely a conclution.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Halcyon
Oh, answer me this, 'Bootstoots':

Why is it that so many believers are convinced that there is a god? There is no proof of one, but that does not mean that one does exist, simply because we cannot prove that there is not a supernatural being.

I do understand the argument that the chance of any religion being correct are extremely low, but why is it that many believers believe that there must be a god if there's no proof either way?

I really don't know the answer to that question. It's something that I haven't really experienced (I'm agnostic btw). Many believers do understand that their belief is illogical (as far as earthly proof goes) but they feel certain that there is a god, for a reason that I don't understand.

 

[Giotto]

Originally posted by polymath
Giotto, my point was that what you wrote was plain wrong - that's all.

So it's plain wrong that many scholars believe that jesus was resurrected, and believe that there is substantial historical evidence? I could post the names of some people if you'd like. I think those of you who are responding to my posts are misenterpreting what I say most of the time. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. In fact, I'm torn between atheism/deism, still figuring out what works for me. I was just curious about what people think historically happened, if not the resurrection. I know that there are many logical arguments for atheism, but that is not what I was asking. I dunno if I'm making any sense, so here's an example:

What I wanted:

me: 2+2=30

someone: I disagree. the problem with 2+2=30 is... (proceed to give me a lesson on addition as to why 2+2 doesn't equal 30)

What I got:

me: 2+2=30

most people: Only idiots believe 2+2=30. I can't believe some people are so stupid to think that. Anyone who thinks 2+2=30 deserves to die.

I know that was an exaggeration, but you see my point (hopefully).

Everyone seems to make the assumption that anytime anyone asks a question about jesus or the resurrection, they are instantly a religious nutbag trying to shove their dogmatic beliefs down everyone's throat. That is not the case. I was trying to explore the resurrection (or lack of resurecction) of Jesus from a historical standpoint, and trying to learn what other people's main argument is to refute it as a historical event.

@bigfatron: yes, that is what I was looking for, thank you! Also, I wasn't trying to appeal to higher authority. I was trying to point out that it is pretty foolish to dismiss some extremely educated people as simpletons just because you do not agree with them.

 

[Akka]

Giotto, if you admit yourself that your question was false and absurd, why do you find strange that people answer "this question is stupid" ?

 

[Giotto]

Originally posted by Akka
Giotto, if you admit yourself that your question was false and absurd, why do you find strange that people answer "this question is stupid" ?

What about my question was false and absurd? I asked people the reasons why they thought the resurrection didn't happened. I'm not sure how any question could be false and absurd in the first place. I never said my question was false or absurd. I personally think that the resurrection is false and absurd. There are many people who do not, some even believe it is accurate and plausible historically. I was asking what people think historically took place, and whether they dismiss the resurrection through philosophical or historical means. Nothing about that is false or absurd. If I would have said "all you atheists are so wrong! jesus was resurrected and history says so!" then I would understand someone replying that what I said was stupid. However, the fact that I asked a simple and perfectly plausible question and faced these responses makes me second guess some people on CFC's self proclaimed genius-ness.

 

[Akka]

I was referring to the post above, when you compare your question with saying "2+2=30" and wonder why people would answer by saying "this is stupid".

The problem lie in HOW you asked your question. They were not carefully enough worded to avoid the mix with the usual creationism garbage.

 

[polymath]

"So it's plain wrong that many scholars believe that jesus was resurrected, and believe that there is substantial historical evidence?" - Giotto

No, that's not what you said. You said that many many scholars believe that there is more evidence for the resurrection than almost any event in history. That is plain wrong. OK, you then said that's not what you really meant, but it is what you posted, and it's wrong. Anyone claiming it is true is, as I said, a simpleton and not a scholar.

 

[Blasphemous]

I have just finished reading this thread (took a while, I read a page or so last night and the rest today.)
I had alot to say while reading through this entire discussion, and much has already escaped me... I'll say what I still remember, anyway.

First off, I was born and raised in a Jewish environment as a Reform Jew, and the earliest instance of non-believing I can remember of myself is in second grade (admittedly not too long ago, but hey, it's been over half my life since then already). I can be classifies somewhere between Atheist and Agnostic. I believe (in the logical sense, not religiously) that God is not untill he is proved to be. I believe the burden of proof is on the side of the believers, and once they prove to me that there is reasonable evidence to support the existance of this being, I will gladly admit I was wrong. I do not think there is any need to "prove" the non-existance of said deity because there is no proof to dispute in the first place. Basically I am an atheist until they give me a good reason not to be. Since as far as I know the term is not yet taken, allow me to classify myself as (an) Adeian.

Anyway, enough about me, let's talk about you.
The whole claim that disbelief requires agreement with the theory of Evolution is complete baloney. Socrates, Plato, and their contemporaries had to deal with massive Atheism in ancient Athens. The closest things to Darwin's theories at the time were a few scattered notions by Aristotle and some other early scientists.
Furthermore, as has alrady been said, Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life in the first place. It only deals with the developement of life once it has been created. As has also been said already, nobody knows how life was created, and I am comfortable with not having an answer to everything - something that I have seen cannot be said for most Theists.

Regarding the original question presented by Giotto in this thread, I am not well-versed in Christian history/mythology and have yet to read the New Testament, so I really don't understand what you mean when you ask "Why do you believe that Jesus was not ressurrected?"

I could continue to attack some of the points that have been made against nonbelief or for belief throughout this thread, but I believe many of my points have already been made by others, so I'll just sit quietly and answer to what comes along later in this discussion.

 

[the mormegil]

The resurrection did happen. Jesus was a powerful Necromancer that brought himself back to life. Refute that!

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by the mormegil
The resurrection did happen. Jesus was a powerful Necromancer that brought himself back to life. Refute that!

That makes him a brain-eating zombie.

Which makes sense.

 

[polymath]

"I was asking what people think historically took place" - Giotto

I believe there was a guy called Jesus who was one of the many proclaimed Messiahs running around at that time. I understand he is mentioned in Roman documents so he is existence is a fairly safe bet. He may well have been executed, it often happened, and if people were gathering round to hear him him (as they gathered round so many so-called Messiahs) the Romans and the Sanhedrin both may well have seen him as a threat, given what he is supposed to have said (which I would strongly question anyway, so....). I think he was probably an Essene, or followed their philosophies, or the Essenes piggybacked on his reputation, his teachings are very similar to theirs from what I have read.

That's about the size of it.