Atheism and Religion

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Go ahead, explain how, even if you were successful in "[lending] a great deal of credibility to John's eye-witness account of the crucifixion", this would be "compelling evidence" of the truth of Christianity.

You read the standards of proof that the author of the link expected. Explain how your "evidence" would be even remotely conclusive by the standards he set.

You read the standards of proof that the author of the link expected. Explain how your "evidence" would be even remotely conclusive by the standards he set.

I never intended it to be the kind of evidence the author of the link required. I'm sorry if I was not clear enough and you misconstrued me.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b] You read the standards of proof that the author of the link expected. Explain how your "evidence" would be even remotely conclusive by the standards he set.

I never intended it to be the kind of evidence the author of the link required. I'm sorry if I was not clear enough and you misconstrued me.[/b]

Yeah right, I must have "misconstrued" you. Just keep digging.

You introduced your evidence as follows:

I don't know what your own particular requirements would be, but the atheist who wrote the article mentioned that scientific knowledge in the Bible not available at the time would be something that absolutely convinced him of the truth of Christianity. The piece of evidence I want to present isn't exactly quantum physics, but it is nevertheless compelling.

If you were only trying to establish John as an eye-witness, why bring up "scientific knowledge" at all? The author mentioned a number of ways he'd be convinced other than by "scientific knowledge". If you weren't looking to provide "evidence" on the same level as in the article, then why introduce it by saying "I don't know what your own particular requirements would be, but the atheist who wrote the article mentioned that scientific knowledge in the Bible not available at the time would be something that absolutely convinced him of the truth of Christianity"?

You're shameless. You're like a little kid who refuses to accept responsibility for his actions and thinks that if he keeps dreaming up ways to deny it, he'll eventually get off the hook.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
By stating that "the piece of evidence I want to present isn't exactly quantum physics, but it is nevertheless compelling," I was trying to communicate that my evidence wasn't exactly of the variety which the author of the website required.

But it wasn't even related to the type of evidence the author of the website required. So why did you reference it? It just seems like a petty attempt to mislead to me.

As for the actual evidence presented, it is hardly convincing. I for one do not dispute that Jesus existed, lived and died on a cross (though I am far from convinced that the evidence is solid). All your post really shows is that the writer was somewhat familiar with people being hanged on crosses.
My understanding is that the Gospel itself does not claim to be an eye witness account, but rather second hand at best.
It certainly doesn't provide one single iota of evidence towards the existence of God anymore than my pointing out that my fridges invisible unicorns are scientifically accurate when it comes to the horse part of their bodies.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b] Eye witnesses are not enough for something that fantastic.

Not even the account of five hundred witnesses at once, all witnessing the same thing, i.e., a personal appearance of Jesus Christ after he had plainly died on a cross? It is hard for me to believe that five hundred people could conspire to lie, and even if they could, it is even harder to believe that word of their conspiracy wouldn't get out.[/b]

Penis theft is regularly witnessed all over the place! Does that mean it occurs?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not going to debate your views on the pre-born, they are your views
you are welcome to them. I was using your views to point out that people
disagree on what is going on, maybe children know a great deal about
God at that age, even Jesus spoke about even the rocks would cry out
to God at one point. I don't know what infants know so making a blanket ...[text shortened]... speak for him, in both the
OT and NT. He is also quite able to speak for Himself too.
Kelly

As we recover our lost memories, our connection to the Divine, different people will come across different pieces of info which may seem quite contradictory at first. When the whole Truth is finally revealed , I'm sure we will find ourselves in agreement about the basic tenets of the universe.
Anyway, you would have to agree there is much we don't know and that a lot of ancient knowledge has been lost ,yes? Cheers.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yeah right, I must have "misconstrued" you. Just keep digging.

You introduced your evidence as follows:
[quote]I don't know what your own particular requirements would be, but the atheist who wrote the article mentioned that scientific knowledge in the Bible not available at the time would be something that absolutely convinced him of the truth of Ch ...[text shortened]... at if he keeps dreaming up ways to deny it, he'll eventually get off the hook.

Listen, all I can say is that I did not intentionally mislead anyone. Obviously, though, I did mislead someone, and you've done a good job establishing how. What more is there to say? I apologize for writing a lame post.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But it wasn't even related to the type of evidence the author of the website required. So why did you reference it? It just seems like a petty attempt to mislead to me.

As for the actual evidence presented, it is hardly convincing. I for one do not dispute that Jesus existed, lived and died on a cross (though I am far from convinced that the evidence i ...[text shortened]... nvisible unicorns are scientifically accurate when it comes to the horse part of their bodies.

But it wasn't even related to the type of evidence the author of the website required. So why did you reference it? It just seems like a petty attempt to mislead to me.

I presented evidence which is obviously and self-evidently not related to the type of evidence the author of the website required. You'd have to have a pretty low opinion of my intelligence to assume I wouldn't know anyone could understand the discrepancy. I assure you, I didn't do it intentionally. But, you're free to believe what you want.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Penis theft is regularly witnessed all over the place! Does that mean it occurs?

I don't understand how that is relevant. Five hundred people simultaneously witnessed the resurrected Christ.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Stabbing a crucified individual with a spear was not a common practice, if that's what you're insinuating. I know of no other instance in recorded history when a dead individual on a cross was stabbed in the chest with a spear. If you know of something, I'd be happy to hear it.

Oh? How do you know it was not a common practice? It is mentioned in the gospels as if it was. Why would they have done it to Jesus if it was not common practice?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't understand how that is relevant. Five hundred people simultaneously witnessed the resurrected Christ.

Are you familiar with the bandwagon effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Not even the account of five hundred witnesses at once, all witnessing the same thing, i.e., a personal appearance of Jesus Christ after he had plainly died on a cross? It is hard for me to believe that five hundred people could conspire to lie, and even if they could, it is even harder to believe that word of their conspiracy wouldn't get out.

Why is this serious error so often perpetuated? I have seen it presented countless times as evidence for the resurrection, yet it has so many flaws one hardly knows where to begin.

1. Do you have 500 witness accounts? I rather suspect not, so the claim itself is false from the very beginning.
2. Do we have other examples of 500 people seeing things that most of us would be skeptical about? Yes, countless examples, yet you don't believe them. Hence your claim that 'it is hard to believe' is also false.
3. You brush over the possibility that they were mistaken not lying.
4. Word of their conspiracy getting out? What records to you have from the area and the period that were not written by Christians? Practically zero.
5. the very fact that it is a nice round number (500) tells us that it is little more than an estimate, thus the whole claim that they are witness accounts is shot in the foot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh? How do you know it was not a common practice? It is mentioned in the gospels as if it was. Why would they have done it to Jesus if it was not common practice?

You're right, it was common practice. According to Quintilian, a first-century author, a victim's relatives were permitted to take down the body and bury it if the victim was first pierced by the executioners. In his Commentary on Matthew, Origen says the lance thrust to Jesus was administered "according to Roman custom, below the armpit." (See Humber, Thomas. The Sacred Shroud. New York, Pocket Books, 1977)

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Are you familiar with the bandwagon effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

The bandwagon effect is progressive though, isn't it? Again, Jesus appeared to 500 people at once. If it had spread from a relative few to more and more people, then it wouldn't have been possible to pinpoint the event itself and declare the number involved. Yet here Paul refers to common knowledge of 500 people witnessing the resurrected Christ.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yet here Paul refers to common knowledge of 500 people witnessing the resurrected Christ.

And you incorrectly reported it as 500 witness accounts, which it most definitely is not. It is instead Paul, referring to common knowledge of 500 possible witnesses.
That is no better than me mentioning that it is common knowledge that 500 people witnessed a statue of Mary crying blood. Will you take my word for it? Will you report my claim as '500 witnesses'?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Listen, all I can say is that I did not intentionally mislead anyone. Obviously, though, I did mislead someone, and you've done a good job establishing how. What more is there to say? I apologize for writing a lame post.

It wasn't my contention that you "intentionally mislead" anyone with the "crucifixion" post, rather that your attempt to present it as "compelling evidence" of "scientific knowledge in the Bible in the Bible not available at the time" was further evidence of your having a low level of discernment when it comes to spiritual matters. However, your attempts at defending the post have used deception.

You also show a low level of discernment with your presentation of the "500 witnesses" evidence. What immediately came to mind was that you only have a claim by Paul that this happened, not a verified claim by 500 individuals. It fails on a number of other levels as well.

From http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/faq-primary-211/resurrection-primary-371/106-do-500-brethern-establish-a-reliable-claim-to-rhe-resurrection

Paul claims that Jesus appeared to "more than five hundred brethren at one time." Does this present a reliable witness to the Christian claim that Jesus was resurrected?


Answer: Some Christians maintain that hallucinations or visions cannot explain the supposed post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. They claim that some five hundred people, at one time, cannot be deluded with the same vision.

It is true that it is unlikely that two or more people would have the same hallucination, not to mention eleven or even five hundred. The

Question is, however, if the claims made are true to begin with.

Paul, writing about twenty-five years after the crucifixion contends, without giving a geographic location, that "upwards of five hundred brethren" had simultaneously seen the resurrected Jesus and that many of them were still alive at the time of his writing (1Corinthians 15:6). No information is provided to indicate whether this experience was a visionary revelation or an actual appearance in the flesh. Moreover, Paul does not tell us whether he was among the five hundred, or whether he had heard the story from one of them, or whether it was merely a story that was circulating among certain Christians. This alleged postresurrection appearance is conspicuously omitted in both the Gospels and the Book of Acts.

Had the Corinthians wanted to verify Paul's statement, it would have been, as Paul must have known, virtually impossible for them to do so, considering the primitive means of communication available in those days. Neither did he mention by name any of the five hundred for possible contact by the Corinthians, had they wanted to seek verification. Who experienced this alleged postresurrection appearance, and when and where this supposedly took place is not stated. The whole incident was either an unverifiable rumor utilized by Paul or simply the result of his overzealous missionary activity.

Once again, this doesn't hold up against the least bit of scrutiny.