are the gracies religious?

[seatea]

Yeah I know there would be other explanations that would be used instead.

Occams' Razor won't shave down to the miracles not taking place. The main reason it is used now is because people believe the miracles are fundamentally impossible. The historical evidence is otherwise strong if we were talking about anything that was not a miracle.

The more complex explanation would be that the miracles did not take place because it would involve a whole bunch of people lying (some of whom didn't really even like each other that much personally so it doesn't seem as if they were in collaboration), and the only reason they would be lying is to get tortured and killed. So that should be the one that gets shaved rather than the explanation that the accounts are true. Again, we would not shave the true explanation if we were talking about anything other than a miracle here.

Do you give equal weight to every fanatical story, modern or historical, Christian or other faith, religious or secular? If not, why are those few examples from Christ's life given special treatment?

I also believe that you are deliberately blinding yourself to fundamental aspects of human nature in this instance that you would never allow yourself in your day-to-day life. Firstly, we know that people who dislike each other can work together if their causes are aligned. Secondly, I believe that most of the people who saw these miracles believed what they saw to be the working of supernatural powers, but what they believe they saw, what they told others they saw, and what they actually did see can be enormously different. Tales get better in the retelling, and no conscious dishonesty need be involved.

For example, use Occams' Razor on Alexander. Since his accounts mainly involve claims that we understand scientifically, we have the following:

1) Alexander was real and the five main accounts we have are telling the truth

2) Alexander was fake, all five guys are lying independently, and they are lying for some reason that doesn't seem to give them any personal gain

You shave the second one. It's simpler to just accept that it is true.

People shave the true explanation for Jesus as more complex because it involves something that is in the realm of the supernatural. If it is no longer supernatural, it won't be shaved.

You're on a hiding to nowhere with these Alexander comparisons. While the original textual sources have been lost there is literally cities worth evidence to support what fragments did survive in the writing of latter historians. If Alexander did not exist, there would have had to have been a massive conspiracy of coin minting, statue building, city founding, city burning, culture transfer etc. Why would 4th/3rd century Afgan's build homes in the Greece style and gymnasiums, why would the Indian King Ashoka feel the need to put his decrees into Greek, why would Buddhists depict Heracles alongside Buddha? The effect of Alexander was immense in his life time. The huge effects of Christianity occurred following his death. During his life his reach was minute, hence the scarcity of contemporary evidence of him (I have no problem with the existence of a historical Jesus by the way). And I cannot accept that you accept that the existence of Alexander and Jesus performing supernatural feats are even remotely comparable in terms of being fantastical.

Occam's Razor well applies to both - Alexander existed, and Jesus performed no true miracles.

 

[seatea]

I think that God wants us to evolve with time. That is a pretty typical Christian view as well. For a scientific example, think of the laws of physics. The laws of physics we don't believe have changed throughout our time as humans. However, the way we view, interpret, and use those laws sure has. I don't see why religion needs to be different. It is our nature as humans, and God made us the way he did for a reason.

The core Christian belief is found in the Jesus story. How we apply that story in our modern life is indeed ever changing. As a seeker of the Truth (I'll use your capital T), I am totally fine with that. If our path to the Truth was direct, there would have been no Old Testament in the first place. Just skip straight to the New Testament and be done with it. But as said before, I believe that God has a plan.

I mean I am not persecuting you or casting you out now am I?

Hehe, these things are the reason why I am conversing with you and not Oldguy. I am interested in how a modern Christian deals with these things, especially morally. Oldguy's is obvious - double down and try barge past.

Historically there really wasn't a ton of thought into how to deal with these situations throughout a lot of Christianity. For a long time, essentially the whole known world for most Christians would have also been Christian. A few Jews lived in the Christian areas, and Muslim encounters were mainly limited to the battlefield. The vast majority of people where Christians ruled were also Christian, and it was very homogenous.

I am not sure I agree with this, it seems a great deal of intellectual effort was put into these matters - books, Papal bulls, justifying or condemning etc. It would have to be looked into case by case (witch hunts for example).

Obviously that is different now. One reason I think the transition has been awkward is because it's relatively recent. But I like to think I am trying at least.

Yes, the change in the last few centuries has been immense, probably more change than in the rest of Christian history combined.

I don't believe it is my place to put divine judgment upon anyone. That's up to God and God alone. So I make no judgments on any non-believers in this thread. All I wish to do is explain what I feel is a reasonable Christian position, and perhaps clear up a few misconceptions along the way.

That doesn't prohibit moral judgement however, when looking at it from that aspect, is it belief of others you look to, or their actions?

 

[Balto]

Do you give equal weight to every fanatical story, modern or historical, Christian or other faith, religious or secular? If not, why are those few examples from Christ's life given special treatment?

I also believe that you are deliberately blinding yourself to fundamental aspects of human nature in this instance that you would never allow yourself in your day-to-day life. Firstly, we know that people who dislike each other can work together if their causes are aligned. Secondly, I believe that most of the people who saw these miracles believed what they saw to be the working of supernatural powers, but what they believe they saw, what they told others they saw, and what they actually did see can be enormously different. Tales get better in the retelling, and no conscious dishonesty need be involved.

You're on a hiding to nowhere with these Alexander comparisons. While the original textual sources have been lost there is literally cities worth evidence to support what fragments did survive in the writing of latter historians. If Alexander did not exist, there would have had to have been a massive conspiracy of coin minting, statue building, city founding, city burning, culture transfer etc. Why would 4th/3rd century Afgan's build homes in the Greece style and gymnasiums, why would the Indian King Ashoka feel the need to put his decrees into Greek, why would Buddhists depict Heracles alongside Buddha? The effect of Alexander was immense in his life time. The huge effects of Christianity occurred following his death. During his life his reach was minute, hence the scarcity of contemporary evidence of him (I have no problem with the existence of a historical Jesus by the way). And I cannot accept that you accept that the existence of Alexander and Jesus performing supernatural feats are even remotely comparable in terms of being fantastical.

Occam's Razor well applies to both - Alexander existed, and Jesus performed no true miracles.

With the massive conspiracy thing if Alexander were false, the same thing applies if Jesus is false. In fact, it's already been called something similar to that several times on this thread. "Biggest joke ever" I recall. It would be a huge conspiracy hoisted on people.

It is said that a lot of people witnessed it, but we don't have any records of anyone saying they witnessed it differently than the Bible. Nor are there are any records of anyone saying hey, I was there, and this definitely didn't happen the way they said it did. This is in spite of the fact that there were concerted efforts by the authorities to repress Christianity for a few hundred years.

So any sources saying it was false would have had to been destroyed/hidden/conspired against somehow, and potentially fake sources saying it was real would have to be created. And anyone who didn't go along with this would have to be killed or bought off or something to keep them quiet. And this would all be happening not while the Christians were in power, but while the Christians were on the run from the greatest power in the world.

Since the authorities were trying so hard to repress them, wouldn't it make sense for the authorities to find the witnesses who would call them liars? I mean this wasn't some secret event. It was very public. So there should have been plenty of witnesses. But somehow we have no record of any of that happening.

I'm not saying it isn't possible; I'm just saying that this being false would also be a huge conspiracy. Considering the impact Christianity has had on the world, it would probably be the biggest conspiracy ever.

 

[Hyperborean]

You are decent by your own standards, not God's. God does not grade on a curve.
You can't earn heaven. If you could, God would owe you and you would be making the rules.

How hard is it to understand the penalty of sin is death. You are dead in your sins right now. The good news is that Jesus paid the price for these sins and rose again on your behalf. He could do this because he is perfect. God became a man and took the penalty for your sin. The only thing you need to do is accept the free gift he is offering you. God gave you free will and will not force you to love him back.

Is that so hard? You don't even have to get up from your chair.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. This isn't rocket science. It is the very beginner basics of Christianity that has been around for 2000 years. You guys act like this is something new or complicated like quantum physics.

We are talking the ABCs of Christianity!

It is like learning the shrimp move on your first day of BJJ.

I would take my standards on morality over your Gods any day...

You do not argue or debate an issue. You preach and that is all you do. If you wanted to discuss honestly and intellectually I would happily ablige you in good tone. However you do not so I will reply in kind.

Why exlude the argument I made? Why not adress all of what I wrote? You either completely missed the point or just chose to ignore it. The way you attempt to argue is embarassing and pathetic. It is on the level of an intellectual midget. What are your actual arguments? You have nothing but assertions and, for a non believer, totally pointless bible quotes. Is that all you can muster?

The penalty for sin is death? prove it... Jesus took away my sin before I was born? Original sin you mean? That concept is utterly despicable. The thought that you inherit blame for someone elses actions should be repulsive to any sane person.

Yes it is that hard! I cannot believe in childrens fairytales and make myself ignore reason and logic. I am to intellectually honest for that. So what if Christianity has been around for 2000 years? That speaks NOTHING to the validity of its claims. Judaism is older, Hinduism and Buddhism are older, guess what, I don

 

[Balto]

Hehe, these things are the reason why I am conversing with you and not Oldguy. I am interested in how a modern Christian deals with these things, especially morally. Oldguy's is obvious - double down and try barge past.

I am not sure I agree with this, it seems a great deal of intellectual effort was put into these matters - books, Papal bulls, justifying or condemning etc. It would have to be looked into case by case (witch hunts for example).
Yes, the change in the last few centuries has been immense, probably more change than in the rest of Christian history combined.

That doesn't prohibit moral judgement however, when looking at it from that aspect, is it belief of others you look to, or their actions?

There really weren't many non-Christians living in Christian run areas for quite a while. There were some Eastern Christians living under Muslim rule for a while, but the Christians weren't calling the shots over there.

The biggest change when Christians in power started having to live in close proximity with large numbers from a faith they considered different was the Catholic/Protestant split. That sparked lots of war and terrible violence. It was some of the worst war ever in medieval Europe.

It took time to adjust. But nowadays, Catholics and Protestants are not warring very much anymore. Maybe some tensions in a few places, but it is nowhere near the same. It seems we have learned to live together.

Now Christians are coming into more contact with Muslims and growing numbers of atheists. So that is another change.

You are right about temporal moral judgment still being allowed in Christianity. This is why we can have judges and courts and stuff. It's just the divine judgment that we can't make. But we are supposed to still judge morally and oppose bad when we see it in the world.

For me, I generally look at people's actions. It's easy to profess one thing and do another. That's an old religious trick that has been abused throughout history. I try to avoid that.

 

[Balto]

Also on witch hunts:

Witch hunts were not really an issue of different religion. The people who were witch hunted weren't actually witches in the first place. The authorities just wanted to kill some people they didn't like. Most of them were other Christians like themselves.

 

[vinniefebs]

You are decent by your own standards, not God's. God does not grade on a curve.
You can't earn heaven. If you could, God would owe you and you would be making the rules.

How hard is it to understand the penalty of sin is death. You are dead in your sins right now. The good news is that Jesus paid the price for these sins and rose again on your behalf. He could do this because he is perfect. God became a man and took the penalty for your sin. The only thing you need to do is accept the free gift he is offering you. God gave you free will and will not force you to love him back.

Is that so hard? You don't even have to get up from your chair.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. This isn't rocket science. It is the very beginner basics of Christianity that has been around for 2000 years. You guys act like this is something new or complicated like quantum physics.

We are talking the ABCs of Christianity!

It is like learning the shrimp move on your first day of BJJ.

 

[nooper]

Curious and telling how many atheists seem to be overly concerned with the habits of the religious.

 

[Balto]

seatea:

I wanted to come up with a little better answer to your points about Alexander. I do understand where you are coming from with the point that someone with limited geographical scope in his lifetime (i.e. Jesus) is tough to compare with someone with immense geographical scope in his lifetime (i.e. Alexander). So I will just switch examples altogether to make a similar point.

Let's use an example from the second largest religion in the world, Islam. The fundamental miracle claimed by that religion (and Muslims do consider it the main miracle) is believed nearly 100% historically accurate by secular historians, and the historical evidence is very similar to the case of Jesus. The key difference is the nature of the miracle claim itself.

Sometimes people think of Islam as similar to Christianity but with Muhammad instead of Jesus. But it is actually much different than that. Muhammad has key differences with Jesus.

One of those differences is that he does not directly perform miracles in the same sense as the Old and New Testaments. There are some supernatural events that some Muslims attribute as miraculous, but there is only one miracle that they all agree on. That miracle is that Muhammad wrote the Quran himself. The religious claim is that the Quran is the pure word of God revealed to Muhammad, and their evidence for that claim is the physical existence of the Quran.

I've seen a few revisionist histories where people claimed that the Quran was not written by Muhammad, but they are not credible even among secular scholars. Almost everyone agrees that, yes, this is historical. The evidence for it being historical is similar to the historical argument for Jesus -- all of the records say he did, a group of people believed he did enough to start a new religion for it, we know the place and time existed and the historical context makes sense, etc.

You could say well, perhaps it was a conspiracy where all the followers made things up after the fact and then used this falsified history to seize power and establish themselves as religious leaders. But even secular scholars don't believe that. There just isn't enough evidence. It is too complicated. It is simpler to believe that Muhammad just wrote the Quran like everyone says he did. It just makes more sense.

The key reason it is accepted historically is because we scientifically understand how an Arabic man in that area at that time could have written a book in Arabic. So there is no need to red flag the conclusion and start looking for other more complex explanations. We just accept that the historical accounts are true.

The historical evidence for Jesus is similar. All of the records we have say he did, a group of people believed enough to start a new religion, we know the place and time existed and the historical context makes sense, etc.

The reason why the secular conclusion on Jesus is the opposite however is because of the nature of the claim. It is believed that it is simply impossible for a man to be God. It is also believed that it is simply impossible to resurrect from the dead three days later.

So rather than accepting the simple conclusion, the simple conclusion gets tossed out automatically by rule as absurd. Then we are left with more complicated conclusions, but they are put forward because how they could happen are within our current scientific understanding. Those conclusions are that everyone is lying, everyone was mistaken, there was a vast conspiracy, stories were greatly exaggerated over time, etc.

I hope that helps as a better example than Alexander. I am not even saying that it is wrong to throw out supernatural explanations during normal scientific inquiry. I am just saying that, with respect to religion, you can't use that rule and get anywhere at all. You have to at least be open to the possibility of God to really be able to get anywhere in a discussion of religion, and God by definition is supernatural (outside the natural universe).

 

[Balto]

The reason why I keep harping on the point above is because it's key to my argument.

The answer to why I make reasoned arguments elsewhere on this board and seem different in these threads is because the difference is superficial. There is only one single part of my argument here that goes outside of the bounds of normal secular discourse, and that is the part where I say that I am open to at least believing that it could be true that an event happened in history that we have no idea how to explain scientifically.

I know that one key part is outside of the bounds of normal secular discourse. But other than that, I am making the exact same style of argument that I would make in a gi vs no gi thread.

Now just because an argument is normal secular discourse does not mean both parties will agree. We have different political parties, different styles of BJJ, etc. We also have different religions. All I am saying is that the argument becomes no different than anything else. Religious people have been scholars all throughout history, so it's no surprise they like to apply the rules of scholarly argument.

If you can accept the postulate that it is indeed possible for something like an event like Jesus resurrecting to occur, then my argument will become just as reasonable to you as any other argument we ever have on here. It is only deemed unreasonable because of the initial postulate that you have to at least consider it a possibility.

Just because my argument becomes reasonable does not mean everyone will agree with me. My Muslim friends certainly disagree with me. But the disagreement is going to be exactly the same as when we disagree about politics or something like that. I am not going to need to do anything different or break any rules of debating or logic.

I know that it is hard to accept that it is possible for things to happen that we do not even remotely understand scientifically yet, but if you move past that roadblock, suddenly we are just having a normal debate. Also this should not be construed as God of the Gaps or any limitation on science. I think we should go forward and try to scientifically understand as many things as possible. I am just saying that, simply because we have no scientific understanding of the thing at the current time, just don't immediately throw out the possibility of the thing as sheer lunacy. Then we have a normal argument just like anything else.

 

[Hyperborean]

seatea:

I wanted to come up with a little better answer to your points about Alexander. I do understand where you are coming from with the point that someone with limited geographical scope in his lifetime (i.e. Jesus) is tough to compare with someone with immense geographical scope in his lifetime (i.e. Alexander). So I will just switch examples altogether to make a similar point.

Let's use an example from the second largest religion in the world, Islam. The fundamental miracle claimed by that religion (and Muslims do consider it the main miracle) is believed nearly 100% historically accurate by secular historians, and the historical evidence is very similar to the case of Jesus. The key difference is the nature of the miracle claim itself.

Sometimes people think of Islam as similar to Christianity but with Muhammad instead of Jesus. But it is actually much different than that. Muhammad has key differences with Jesus.

One of those differences is that he does not directly perform miracles in the same sense as the Old and New Testaments. There are some supernatural events that some Muslims attribute as miraculous, but there is only one miracle that they all agree on. That miracle is that Muhammad wrote the Quran himself. The religious claim is that the Quran is the pure word of God revealed to Muhammad, and their evidence for that claim is the physical existence of the Quran.

I've seen a few revisionist histories where people claimed that the Quran was not written by Muhammad, but they are not credible even among secular scholars. Almost everyone agrees that, yes, this is historical. The evidence for it being historical is similar to the historical argument for Jesus -- all of the records say he did, a group of people believed he did enough to start a new religion for it, we know the place and time existed and the historical context makes sense, etc.

You could say well, perhaps it was a conspiracy where all the followers made things up after the fact and then used this falsified history to seize power and establish themselves as religious leaders. But even secular scholars don't believe that. There just isn't enough evidence. It is too complicated. It is simpler to believe that Muhammad just wrote the Quran like everyone says he did. It just makes more sense.

The key reason it is accepted historically is because we scientifically understand how an Arabic man in that area at that time could have written a book in Arabic. So there is no need to red flag the conclusion and start looking for other more complex explanations. We just accept that the historical accounts are true.

The historical evidence for Jesus is similar. All of the records we have say he did, a group of people believed enough to start a new religion, we know the place and time existed and the historical context makes sense, etc.

The reason why the secular conclusion on Jesus is the opposite however is because of the nature of the claim. It is believed that it is simply impossible for a man to be God. It is also believed that it is simply impossible to resurrect from the dead three days later.

So rather than accepting the simple conclusion, the simple conclusion gets tossed out automatically by rule as absurd. Then we are left with more complicated conclusions, but they are put forward because how they could happen are within our current scientific understanding. Those conclusions are that everyone is lying, everyone was mistaken, there was a vast conspiracy, stories were greatly exaggerated over time, etc.

I hope that helps as a better example than Alexander. I am not even saying that it is wrong to throw out supernatural explanations during normal scientific inquiry. I am just saying that, with respect to religion, you can't use that rule and get anywhere at all. You have to at least be open to the possibility of God to really be able to get anywhere in a discussion of religion, and God by definition is supernatural (outside the natural universe).

Well first of you claim the writing of the Quran is an accepted miracle. In no way shape or form is the writing of a book a miracle. An the academical consensus would NOT accept a claim that the Quran was the actual word on god put on paper. Now you state this further down in your example so why even muddy the waters by calling it an accepted miracle.

Second you claim that the supernatural claims of Jesus is thought of as impossible. This is a false statement. You are missrepresenting what the Scientific method is about. You make out to be this rigid, close minded system that just flattly refuses to believe in certain things. This is not true, nothing in science is thought of as impossible (you can not prove a negative) but things should not be believed unless there is sufficient evidence for it so you hold off on believing until you have good evidence (and even then nothing is 100% certain, new information could come to light that would make opinions on matters previously thought true change). Just writing and asserting an event of this nature happened is simply not good enough. It proves nothing. It really is that simple. And context matters, and obviously evidence gained from other sources matter etc.

 

[Hyperborean]

The reason why I keep harping on the point above is because it's key to my argument.

The answer to why I make reasoned arguments elsewhere on this board and seem different in these threads is because the difference is superficial. There is only one single part of my argument here that goes outside of the bounds of normal secular discourse, and that is the part where I say that I am open to at least believing that it could be true that an event happened in history that we have no idea how to explain scientifically.


I know that one key part is outside of the bounds of normal secular discourse. But other than that, I am making the exact same style of argument that I would make in a gi vs no gi thread.

Now just because an argument is normal secular discourse does not mean both parties will agree. We have different political parties, different styles of BJJ, etc. We also have different religions. All I am saying is that the argument becomes no different than anything else. Religious people have been scholars all throughout history, so it's no surprise they like to apply the rules of scholarly argument.

If you can accept the postulate that it is indeed possible for something like an event like Jesus resurrecting to occur, then my argument will become just as reasonable to you as any other argument we ever have on here. It is only deemed unreasonable because of the initial postulate that you have to at least consider it a possibility.

Just because my argument becomes reasonable does not mean everyone will agree with me. My Muslim friends certainly disagree with me. But the disagreement is going to be exactly the same as when we disagree about politics or something like that. I am not going to need to do anything different or break any rules of debating or logic.

I know that it is hard to accept that it is possible for things to happen that we do not even remotely understand scientifically yet, but if you move past that roadblock, suddenly we are just having a normal debate. Also this should not be construed as God of the Gaps or any limitation on science. I think we should go forward and try to scientifically understand as many things as possible. I am just saying that, simply because we have no scientific understanding of the thing at the current time, just don't immediately throw out the possibility of the thing as sheer lunacy. Then we have a normal argument just like anything else.

But thats the thing, it is not just one small part. You throw out the whole basis of the scientific method, the very foundation of it. So what if the rest of it mimics reason when the premesis is faulty (note, I

 

[Oldguy]

I would take my standards on morality over your Gods any day...

You do not argue or debate an issue. You preach and that is all you do. If you wanted to discuss honestly and intellectually I would happily ablige you in good tone. However you do not so I will reply in kind.

Why exlude the argument I made? Why not adress all of what I wrote? You either completely missed the point or just chose to ignore it. The way you attempt to argue is embarassing and pathetic. It is on the level of an intellectual midget. What are your actual arguments? You have nothing but assertions and, for a non believer, totally pointless bible quotes. Is that all you can muster?

The penalty for sin is death? prove it... Jesus took away my sin before I was born? Original sin you mean? That concept is utterly despicable. The thought that you inherit blame for someone elses actions should be repulsive to any sane person.

Yes it is that hard! I cannot believe in childrens fairytales and make myself ignore reason and logic. I am to intellectually honest for that. So what if Christianity has been around for 2000 years? That speaks NOTHING to the validity of its claims. Judaism is older, Hinduism and Buddhism are older, guess what, I don

 

[Hyperborean]

I am not here to play your debate games. I am here to point out that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and I have backed it up. I have not seen one single refutation of his claim to be the Messiah. You can keep shaking your fist at God all you want.

You are lost.

If you are not here to engage in an actual discussion then what the hell are you doing here? Leave the thread to those more capable than yourself. Your asinine assetions only reveal the level of your own ignorance. And YOU (read: you Christians) are the one making the Messiah claim so the burden of proof lies on you. You can

 

[Gambledub]

Have you honestly researched these prophecies?

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

My experience is that most people claim there is not enough proof. However, they haven't actually looked.

"1. Genesis 3:15.....Seed of a woman (virgin birth).....Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18-20"

Please demonstrate the conclusive proof that this happened. This is the first one on the list.

Like I said, an atheist does not believe the bible is a true or in some parts real account. Proof as most people understand it, is the court room definition of reasonable doubt. So please, prove to me this happened. Show me sources outside of the Bible, or accounts from people with little vested interest in confirming it. Where are the sources that prove this happened.

I am not here to play your debate games. Your so called questions are just excuses to avoid the central issue - you are sinner in need of a savior. So, I am here to point out that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and I have backed it up. I have not seen one single refutation of his claim to be the Messiah. You can keep shaking your fist at God all you want. It won't change anything.

Man responds to Jesus Christ in two ways. They accept him as Savior or they kill him. You have killed him in your mind.

You have not backed up anything. I asked you for something outside of bible quotes and you ignored it.

The bible supports the idea Jesus was a prophet... who would have thought?

I really don't want to get into a religious debate, much less on the grappling forum, but to an atheist what the bible says doesn't hold a ton of weight in an argument about gods existence. Much like suggesting the movie 300 isn't evidence that Xerxes was a 10 foot man who only won because a cripple showed him the way.

Why didn't you say this earlier? Such conclusive evidence.

I will counter with...

"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"

and if you do not believe that, then surely this is irrefutable evidence...

GANDALF: End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it.

PIPPIN: What? Gandalf? See what?

GANDALF: White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.

I have now just provided evidence that you are wrong.

 

[Hyperborean]

Man responds to Jesus Christ in two ways. They accept him as Savior or they kill him. You have killed him in your mind.

No, I most certainly have not. Have you murdered Bigfoot in your mind? Or perhaps the Loch Ness monster is on your hitlist? If there was good solid evidence for the claims of the divine I would belive in its existance. Or if new evidance is brought into the light I would be ready to change my position. Not necessarily worship or respect it though, that would be another issue that would depend on the nature of the divine.

 

[Balto]

Hyperborean:

You are right that I have not used the scientific method at all in my argument. I wish I could, but it does not apply here. I don't have a time machine to back to 30 AD and empirically verify the event. The hypothesis is not scientifically testable (at least not without making massive leaps in technology like time machines and stuff), so I am not using the scientific method at all here.

For claims that are scientifically testable (say someone who claims healing powers in the modern day), I am totally fine with using science there. Put them in a lab and do a double blind experiment. We usually find no better than placebo, but occasionally we do realize that we are wrong and there is actually something to these methods. Again I am totally fine with using science for that, and in fact am a huge proponent.

Where you are making is a mistake is when you assume that since my argument is not scientific, it is not rational. Science is not the only basis for rational arguments.

Logic is not science, but logic is still rational. I can make a perfectly airtight logical argument about anything I want, whether it empirically exists or not.

Mathematics is not science, but mathematics is still rational. Some of the most coolest mathematics problems are complete conjecture that have no real world relevance at all. Mathematicians appreciate them for their beauty alone.

Philosophy is not science, but philosophy is still rational. Let me ask you this: do you believe murder is wrong? I know it is dangerous to assume, but I assume that you do believe this. I also assume that you probably believe this fervently enough to "force your beliefs on others" by putting murderers in jail.

Can you scientifically prove that murder is wrong? No, you cannot. I have had people try to argue that you can before with me, but the argument will just have to stop there then because that is plainly not true. You cannot empirically prove with repeatable, measurable, experiments that murder is "wrong". So at that point, you are basing a core belief on moral philosophy, not science.

I agree that I have made no scientific arguments at all. What I am saying is that I have made rational arguments, primarily through logic (I have been avoiding fallacies) and history (I've talked a lot about how to evaluate the historical credibility of various sources).

Science is not the only intellectual, rational pursuit. The liberal arts include literature, language, art, music, philosophy, history, mathematics, and of course science. Science is just one path to rational intellectual inquiry.

 

[seatea]

With the massive conspiracy thing if Alexander were false, the same thing applies if Jesus is false. In fact, it's already been called something similar to that several times on this thread. "Biggest joke ever" I recall. It would be a huge conspiracy hoisted on people.

It is said that a lot of people witnessed it, but we don't have any records of anyone saying they witnessed it differently than the Bible. Nor are there are any records of anyone saying hey, I was there, and this definitely didn't happen the way they said it did. This is in spite of the fact that there were concerted efforts by the authorities to repress Christianity for a few hundred years.

So any sources saying it was false would have had to been destroyed/hidden/conspired against somehow, and potentially fake sources saying it was real would have to be created. And anyone who didn't go along with this would have to be killed or bought off or something to keep them quiet. And this would all be happening not while the Christians were in power, but while the Christians were on the run from the greatest power in the world.

Since the authorities were trying so hard to repress them, wouldn't it make sense for the authorities to find the witnesses who would call them liars? I mean this wasn't some secret event. It was very public. So there should have been plenty of witnesses. But somehow we have no record of any of that happening.

I'm not saying it isn't possible; I'm just saying that this being false would also be a huge conspiracy. Considering the impact Christianity has had on the world, it would probably be the biggest conspiracy ever.

Most of the people who witnessed Jesus' miracles would have believed what they saw to be genuine supernatural ability, any conspiracy needn't have large, indeed, the more people who are let in on the secret the more likely it is to fail.

Curious and telling how many atheists seem to be overly concerned with the habits of the religious.

I'm not allowed to be curious about religious people?

seatea:

I wanted to come up with a little better answer to your points about Alexander. I do understand where you are coming from with the point that someone with limited geographical scope in his lifetime (i.e. Jesus) is tough to compare with someone with immense geographical scope in his lifetime (i.e. Alexander). So I will just switch examples altogether to make a similar point.

Let's use an example from the second largest religion in the world, Islam. The fundamental miracle claimed by that religion (and Muslims do consider it the main miracle) is believed nearly 100% historically accurate by secular historians, and the historical evidence is very similar to the case of Jesus. The key difference is the nature of the miracle claim itself.

Sometimes people think of Islam as similar to Christianity but with Muhammad instead of Jesus. But it is actually much different than that. Muhammad has key differences with Jesus.

One of those differences is that he does not directly perform miracles in the same sense as the Old and New Testaments. There are some supernatural events that some Muslims attribute as miraculous, but there is only one miracle that they all agree on. That miracle is that Muhammad wrote the Quran himself. The religious claim is that the Quran is the pure word of God revealed to Muhammad, and their evidence for that claim is the physical existence of the Quran.

I've seen a few revisionist histories where people claimed that the Quran was not written by Muhammad, but they are not credible even among secular scholars. Almost everyone agrees that, yes, this is historical. The evidence for it being historical is similar to the historical argument for Jesus -- all of the records say he did, a group of people believed he did enough to start a new religion for it, we know the place and time existed and the historical context makes sense, etc.

You could say well, perhaps it was a conspiracy where all the followers made things up after the fact and then used this falsified history to seize power and establish themselves as religious leaders. But even secular scholars don't believe that. There just isn't enough evidence. It is too complicated. It is simpler to believe that Muhammad just wrote the Quran like everyone says he did. It just makes more sense.

The key reason it is accepted historically is because we scientifically understand how an Arabic man in that area at that time could have written a book in Arabic. So there is no need to red flag the conclusion and start looking for other more complex explanations. We just accept that the historical accounts are true.

The historical evidence for Jesus is similar. All of the records we have say he did, a group of people believed enough to start a new religion, we know the place and time existed and the historical context makes sense, etc.

The reason why the secular conclusion on Jesus is the opposite however is because of the nature of the claim. It is believed that it is simply impossible for a man to be God. It is also believed that it is simply impossible to resurrect from the dead three days later.

So rather than accepting the simple conclusion, the simple conclusion gets tossed out automatically by rule as absurd. Then we are left with more complicated conclusions, but they are put forward because how they could happen are within our current scientific understanding. Those conclusions are that everyone is lying, everyone was mistaken, there was a vast conspiracy, stories were greatly exaggerated over time, etc.

But again, you run into the problem of comparing the fantastical to the mundane - writing a book is in no way the equivalent of bringing someone back from the dead.

I hope that helps as a better example than Alexander. I am not even saying that it is wrong to throw out supernatural explanations during normal scientific inquiry. I am just saying that, with respect to religion, you can't use that rule and get anywhere at all. You have to at least be open to the possibility of God to really be able to get anywhere in a discussion of religion, and God by definition is supernatural (outside the natural universe).

And there the problem lies - to me, religion is not a special category that should be approached differently. Back to Alexander; the surviving texts say that when Alexander was making his way to a temple in the Siwah oasis (Libya) he became lost due to sand covering the road. However, he was guided to his destination by either a) two talking snakes, or b) two crows. Now, I would approach the above claims in the same way as Jesus' (or anyone else's) miracles, whereas perhaps you would treat each one differently, yes?

 

[Balto]

But again, you run into the problem of comparing the fantastical to the mundane - writing a book is in no way the equivalent of bringing someone back from the dead.

And there the problem lies - to me, religion is not a special category that should be approached differently. Back to Alexander; the surviving texts say that when Alexander was making his way to a temple in the Siwah oasis (Libya) he became lost due to sand covering the road. However, he was guided to his destination by either a) two talking snakes, or b) two crows. Now, I would approach the above claims in the same way as Jesus' (or anyone else's) miracles, whereas perhaps you would treat each one differently, yes?

Yes, you are back to the core of the problem. I agree that writing a book is in a completely different category than resurrecting from the dead. That is what I mean about the arguments being thrown out due to the conclusion being considered unacceptable, not due to the structure of the arguments themselves.

For your example with Alexander, I am not going to treat those claims any differently. How many witnesses were there to these miracles? What was the significance? Did Alexander fulfill prophecies written long before his time? Did Alexander claim to be God? And if so, did he pull off a miracle bigger than resurrection to prove it over Jesus's claim?

If you are asking my personal opinion, I have no real problem believing that snakes or crows communicated with him. I think things talk to us in weird ways sometimes. My best friend's dad died a couple months ago, and he told me that the day after, a bird landed on his window. Then he heard the bird say in the voice of his dad that he was okay.

I mean maybe that happened, maybe it was all in his head, I can't say for sure. I don't think he was lying or had any reason to lie. Personally I am open to the idea that it was his dad telling him he was all right.

There's nothing in Christianity that would say that a similar thing could not have happened to Alexander.

 

[Hyperborean]

Hyperborean:

You are right that I have not used the scientific method at all in my argument. I wish I could, but it does not apply here. I don't have a time machine to back to 30 AD and empirically verify the event. The hypothesis is not scientifically testable (at least not without making massive leaps in technology like time machines and stuff), so I am not using the scientific method at all here.

For claims that are scientifically testable (say someone who claims healing powers in the modern day), I am totally fine with using science there. Put them in a lab and do a double blind experiment. We usually find no better than placebo, but occasionally we do realize that we are wrong and there is actually something to these methods. Again I am totally fine with using science for that, and in fact am a huge proponent.

Where you are making is a mistake is when you assume that since my argument is not scientific, it is not rational. Science is not the only basis for rational arguments.

Logic is not science, but logic is still rational. I can make a perfectly airtight logical argument about anything I want, whether it empirically exists or not.

Mathematics is not science, but mathematics is still rational. Some of the most coolest mathematics problems are complete conjecture that have no real world relevance at all. Mathematicians appreciate them for their beauty alone.

Philosophy is not science, but philosophy is still rational. Let me ask you this: do you believe murder is wrong? I know it is dangerous to assume, but I assume that you do believe this. I also assume that you probably believe this fervently enough to "force your beliefs on others" by putting murderers in jail.

Can you scientifically prove that murder is wrong? No, you cannot. I have had people try to argue that you can before with me, but the argument will just have to stop there then because that is plainly not true. You cannot empirically prove with repeatable, measurable, experiments that murder is "wrong". So at that point, you are basing a core belief on moral philosophy, not science.

I agree that I have made no scientific arguments at all. What I am saying is that I have made rational arguments, primarily through logic (I have been avoiding fallacies) and history (I've talked a lot about how to evaluate the historical credibility of various sources).

Science is not the only intellectual, rational pursuit. The liberal arts include literature, language, art, music, philosophy, history, mathematics, and of course science. Science is just one path to rational intellectual inquiry.

Well yes maybe I wasn