Originally posted by dj2beckerHave you ever presented any valid evidence?
It was also the case with Frank Morison, a British lawyer who set out to write a book repudiating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He wrote his book, but it is not the book he set out to write. As he examined the evidence for the resurre ...[text shortened]... n looked at the evidences provided for the resurrection of Christ?
Like maybe a letter from a roman soldiers home to mom and dad saying something like " BTW MOM I think we Killed God today"
and not something written 100 years later
Originally posted by StarrmanNo, since there is no proof Jesus rose from the dead, and his entire human existence is also debateable....
...
No, since there is no proof Jesus rose from the dead, and his entire human existence is also debateable...
To say there is no evidence is nonsense. There is sufficient evidence of the resurrection of Christ to make the belief reasonable. There is not enough evidence to prove it is true (if you can call any conclusion to an inductive argument a proven truth) but it is reasonable to believe it is true.
The historical truth of Christ is hardly worth debating. That has been agreed upon by the most liberal secular historians.
I am open to the possibilty, but there is absolutely no proof that there is an afterlife. ...Should evidence be found, I will be open to it.
What I find surprising is anyone would argue that they do not believe things unless they are first proven to them. I would say that person is either confused or is lying (maybe to himself also). An honest appraisal of any persons beliefs would reveal many are held on the flimsiest evidence.
...Your doctrine tells you not to experience a great many things and because of that, you will never understand what the totality of the possiblities of humanity are.
Yes, like murder, rape, incest, sex with animals. Lots of great experiences we are missing. That is the weakest, least rational of your arguments.
Originally posted by Coletti
To say there is no evidence is nonsense. There is sufficient evidence of the resurrection of Christ to make the belief reasonable. There is not enough evidence to prove it is true (if you can call any conclusion to an inductive argument a proven truth) but it is reasonable to believe it is true.
If you re-read you will notice I used the word proof, not evidence. I also do not believe it is anywhere near reasonable to believe it is true, I think it is utterly unreasonable to believe it is true due to the ambiguity of any evidence being provided.
The historical truth of Christ is hardly worth debating. That has been agreed upon by the most liberal secular historians.
I did not say that I believed Jesus did or did not exist, I said that his existence is debateable. The matter that it has been agreed upon by 'most liberal secular historians' still allows for the debate to continue. I do not think this debate is any less worthy.
What I find surprising is anyone would argue that they do not believe things unless they are first proven to them.
This is not what I said, you are extrapolating. I was talking specifically about the afterlife and the more extreme and supernatural a claim, the more evidence I will need to convince me.
I would say that person is either confused or is lying (maybe to himself also). An honest appraisal of any persons beliefs would reveal many are held on the flimsiest evidence.
Something as potent as the afterlife should not be supported on flimsy evidence. I am not lying to myself about what I base beliefs on.
Yes, like murder, rape, incest, sex with animals. Lots of great experiences we are missing. That is the weakest, least rational of your arguments.
These were not the things I was refering to and I think you know it. I was refering to things like drinking, sex, certain types of art and more importantly an interest in knowledge. Knowledge that sometimes encompases dark things. A lot Christians I have met have considered even talking about things like sex a taboo area. They limit their experiences and no longer have a thirst for knowledge. They will never understand the dark side of human nature in other aspects like music, art or literature and it is these experiences, good or bad that are important in my opinion. The banality and mediocrity that a world without darkness would create is a world of no creative stimulus and that is not a world I wish to live in. I find it very hard to consider my arguement less rational than that of someone like dj2becker, who in my mind pays rationality no heed at all.
Originally posted by Officer DibbleWithout God you are looking at a live dog is better than a dead lion.
I agree with that. As an atheist I think life has more purpose without God. Those who believe in God (or a god) certainly find purpose in that, but I believe ultimately they're putting their faith in, and in the terms of this thread finding a purpose for living in, a figment of their own imagination. Finding purpose in life with no god is perhaps ...[text shortened]... challenge, as no one gives you a ready-made set of answers, but I believe it is more meaningful.
What meaning is there after you are gone, there is nothing of you
left but the memories of others of you. Most are forgotten after a
while, and those that we do remember odds are a few of those are
because of the bad things they did, few for the good. Out of the
billions that have lived, if there is nothing more what meaning do you
find? At least with God and ever lasting life, there is more to life
than pleasure, hate, power on earth now and so on. The way things
are viewed would be completely different, since we cannot take many
of the things we lust for with us after we die.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayTell me, does it scare you to think that this might be all there is to it, that once you are dead and gone, that there is nothing but memories of you left?
Without God you are looking at a live dog is better than a dead lion.
What meaning is there after you are gone, there is nothing of you
left but the memories of others of you. Most are forgotten after a
while, and those that we do remember odds are a few of those are
because of the bad things they did, few for the good. Out of the
billions that have li ...[text shortened]... ely different, since we cannot take many
of the things we lust for with us after we die.
Kelly
I do not want to die because I enjoy life and when death comes I will be taken kicking and screaming about it. But I am also aware that when I do die, there is nothing else. You may think that this is a scarey prospect, but I find a certain solace in the idea that I will return to the stardust of the universe. I am not scared that there is no life after death, because I count myself lucky enough to have experienced this life, considering how amazingly unlikely my birth was.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanBut I am also aware that when I do die, there is nothing else.
Tell me, does it scare you to think that this might be all there is to it, that once you are dead and gone, that there is nothing but memories of you left?
I do not want to die because I enjoy life and when death comes I will be taken kicking and screaming about it. But I am also aware that when I do die, there is nothing else. You may think that this ...[text shortened]... elf lucky enough to have experienced this life, considering how amazingly unlikely my birth was.
How do you know this?
You may think that this is a scarey prospect, but I find a certain solace in the idea that I will return to the stardust of the universe.
What if this does not happen to you when you die?
Originally posted by dj2becker
How do you know this?
Looking at the evidence and using Occam's Razor I decide this is the most likely of stances to be correct.
What if this does not happen to you when you die?
Then whatever does happen will be all the more exciting and interesting. I actually enjoy being proved wrong 🙂
Originally posted by StarrmanWhy would I fear nothing?
Tell me, does it scare you to think that this might be all there is to it, that once you are dead and gone, that there is nothing but memories of you left?
I do not want to die because I enjoy life and when death comes I will be taken kicking and screaming about it. But I am also aware that when I do die, there is nothing else. You may think that this ...[text shortened]... elf lucky enough to have experienced this life, considering how amazingly unlikely my birth was.
Kelly
Originally posted by StarrmanLike you understand all the evidence to make that call.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]How do you know this?
Looking at the evidence and using Occam's Razor I decide this is the most likely of stances to be correct.
What if this does not happen to you when you die?
Then whatever does happen will be all the more exciting and interesting. I actually enjoy being proved wrong 🙂[/b]
Kelly
Originally posted by StarrmanOn a side question, your answer made me think, are there any
Tell me, does it scare you to think that this might be all there is to it, that once you are dead and gone, that there is nothing but memories of you left?
I do not want to die because I enjoy life and when death comes I will be taken kicking and screaming about it. But I am also aware that when I do die, there is nothing else. You may think that this ...[text shortened]... elf lucky enough to have experienced this life, considering how amazingly unlikely my birth was.
vegan atheist?
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderHey, don't sweat it no1, you're a decent enough fellow to be a church treasurer. You found what the "christian" never truely seek:
Nope I don't but I don't pretend I do. I remain at this time a shaky agnostic willing to look at whatever evidence is presented.
decency for the sake of being decent.
btw want a treasurers job?