Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2012, 12:30 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2012 04:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
Ok. I'm out. I'm not going to waste my time. If you are unwilling to place your belief in this supposed event in a more general context, as any rational person does, and would, and agree to be honest and consistent about the standards of evidence, and the conclusions one can draw from those levels, and kinds of evidence, and what constitutes "evidence" in the first place, you can whistle in the wind. Good luck with that.

I hope you realize that your own religion's theology says, that ultimately there IS no evidence which is ultimately conclusive. William Lane Craig has said he would believe no matter what the evidence is, because he was given faith by the Holy Spirit, (he believes, because he believes), the ultimate circular argument. In your theological system faith is a "virtue"...a (capritiously) granted gift of the Spirit. Your theological system admits that at some point a leap of faith is needed, and one abandons reason to make that leap. YOUR system and theologians do not dispute that. Some people do not choose to abandon reason, ever. The only question remaining, at the end of the day, is "what is the motivation for the leap ?"





The bad faith of William Lane Craig




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-08-2012, 12:54 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
ideasonscribe, but the ressurection is only described in one book! The bible, which is far from reliable as far as historical fact is concerned, is highly unreliable. How are you supposed to base your arguments on fairytales that contradict eachother at every turn?

That's like arguing the validity of alchemy based on old scrolls from unknown people claiming they've turned lead into gold with no mention of it by anyone else on the entire planet!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like sillinde's post
07-08-2012, 03:29 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 12:09 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I understand where you guys are coming from. As far as discounting documents, writings or any material at all from the discussion, I am not going to add that to the ground rules. If someone wants to use invalid documents, then so be it, but the opposite side obviously has no obligation to take to heart the opposing case.

Once the discussion is over, then we can take the information we get and test it's reliability. But the discussion is about the resurrection, not the reliability of certain documents. If this conflicts with the discussion title, then we can revise it. But I do not want this to be about what documents we are and are not allowed to use.
I am going to use whatever resources we have at our disposal.


And Bucky Ball, making agreements before a discussion is not important and sometimes inhibits a fair dialogue.
I'm not going to make agreements to anything. If the opposing side decides to talk about other historical events and the viability of them, I consider that off topic.

Bucky Ball, do you understand what the discussion is supposed to be about?
We are concentrating on one particular claim. That is all, and if we start looking at other people, other events, we could go on rabbit trails that lead nowhere.
Those are different topics for different discussions.

I want to step up to speak against the motion.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Atothetheist's post
08-08-2012, 09:56 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 12:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ok. I'm out. I'm not going to waste my time. If you are unwilling to place your belief in this supposed event in a more general context, as any rational person does, and would, and agree to be honest and consistent about the standards of evidence, and the conclusions one can draw from those levels, and kinds of evidence, and what constitutes "evidence" in the first place, you can whistle in the wind. Good luck with that.

I hope you realize that your own religion's theology says, that ultimately there IS no evidence which is ultimately conclusive. William Lane Craig has said he would believe no matter what the evidence is, because he was given faith by the Holy Spirit, (he believes, because he believes), the ultimate circular argument. In your theological system faith is a "virtue"...a (capritiously) granted gift of the Spirit. Your theological system admits that at some point a leap of faith is needed, and one abandons reason to make that leap. YOUR system and theologians do not dispute that. Some people do not choose to abandon reason, ever. The only question remaining, at the end of the day, is "what is the motivation for the leap ?"

Bucky Ball, I understand that it upsets you that I won't adhere to your standards of what you think I should and should not do in an argument.
I didn't ask you to join the conversation, it's up to you.
But I will note that I don't think it's irrational to focus on just one topic at a time.

Now, if you wanted to discuss the other claims at a later argument, then maybe we could do that. It's not that I am completely shutting you down on what you're saying, I just don't want to add unnecessary material to the debate.
In fact, it's interesting what you're saying. I haven't really even heard about what you're talking about until now. So I wouldn't mind doing some research on these claims you're talking about. You might have to give me some resources to look up (aside from the videos you posted).

For now, those subjects aren't a part of the discussion (as far as I can tell) and it's mainly going to be focused on the individual claim of Jesus' resurrection.

sillinde Wrote:ideasonscribe, but the ressurection is only described in one book! The bible, which is far from reliable as far as historical fact is concerned, is highly unreliable. How are you supposed to base your arguments on fairytales that contradict eachother at every turn?

That's like arguing the validity of alchemy based on old scrolls from unknown people claiming they've turned lead into gold with no mention of it by anyone else on the entire planet!

That's why we have the debates,
We have to try and figure this stuff out ^_^

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
08-08-2012, 04:08 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 09:14 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 09:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  4.) The Bible isn't viable compelling evidence, because in order to validate it's content you have to use either circular logic or the composition fallacy

I agree with the other ground rules.

I've heard this a lot before. So maybe you can explain why any Scripture would not be considered as historical documents?

I'm just curious honestly because I hear that a lot but don't hear why they think so.

Also, I'll most likely be using evidence from both ends.
Whatever that may mean.

The Bible is not compelling evidence because it's claims are not supported in any way, and are in fact refuted by all other direct evidence accepted by the academic, legal, and scientific communities. The ground rules of what does and does not constitute evidence from a debate standpoint are not vague, nor are they hard to learn.

If you plan to allow the two sides of this "debate" to call whatever they want "evidence" and then cite it to support their side you have already rendered it pointless.

Jesus is pretend.

See? I'm going to cite my post here as "compelling evidence" that Jesus is pretend. It's compelling evidence because I wrote it down. See how easy that was?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 04:11 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2012 07:48 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 09:56 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 12:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ok. I'm out. I'm not going to waste my time. If you are unwilling to place your belief in this supposed event in a more general context, as any rational person does, and would, and agree to be honest and consistent about the standards of evidence, and the conclusions one can draw from those levels, and kinds of evidence, and what constitutes "evidence" in the first place, you can whistle in the wind. Good luck with that.

I hope you realize that your own religion's theology says, that ultimately there IS no evidence which is ultimately conclusive. William Lane Craig has said he would believe no matter what the evidence is, because he was given faith by the Holy Spirit, (he believes, because he believes), the ultimate circular argument. In your theological system faith is a "virtue"...a (capritiously) granted gift of the Spirit. Your theological system admits that at some point a leap of faith is needed, and one abandons reason to make that leap. YOUR system and theologians do not dispute that. Some people do not choose to abandon reason, ever. The only question remaining, at the end of the day, is "what is the motivation for the leap ?"

Bucky Ball, I understand that it upsets you that I won't adhere to your standards of what you think I should and should not do in an argument.
I didn't ask you to join the conversation, it's up to you.
But I will note that I don't think it's irrational to focus on just one topic at a time.

Now, if you wanted to discuss the other claims at a later argument, then maybe we could do that. It's not that I am completely shutting you down on what you're saying, I just don't want to add unnecessary material to the debate.
In fact, it's interesting what you're saying. I haven't really even heard about what you're talking about until now. So I wouldn't mind doing some research on these claims you're talking about. You might have to give me some resources to look up (aside from the videos you posted).

For now, those subjects aren't a part of the discussion (as far as I can tell) and it's mainly going to be focused on the individual claim of Jesus' resurrection.

sillinde Wrote:ideasonscribe, but the ressurection is only described in one book! The bible, which is far from reliable as far as historical fact is concerned, is highly unreliable. How are you supposed to base your arguments on fairytales that contradict eachother at every turn?

That's like arguing the validity of alchemy based on old scrolls from unknown people claiming they've turned lead into gold with no mention of it by anyone else on the entire planet!

That's why we have the debates,
We have to try and figure this stuff out ^_^

1. No one is upset. This subject is a dead horse. It's not an open question, for anyone here, except, apparently you. I "figured out" that zombies were not real, in First Grade.

2. I did not ask you to focus on multiple points. I asked you to discuss the standards of evidence, to focus on your one point, that you will accept, in order to accept a (supposed) historical event, in a general way, before entering a "discussion". Then I asked you, after accepting the standards of evidence that you will use to accept this supposed historical event, to be consistent, and agree that you will accept the SAME standards for other "historical" events. You refused. That tells me one thing. You refuse to be consistent, and intellectually honest, and know, that you really would NOT accept the same standards of evidence for other events, and are afraid you will made a fool of. If the standards of evidence are good for this supposed "historical" event, they are good for all historical events. I'm not asking you to focus on another topic. I'm asking for consistency in ALL topics, and that you agree to it, before we start.

3. This is not a debate. This is a "discussion". I would assume, that you, being fresh from "On Guard", think you're going to use the Habermas crap to attempt to "prove" the resurrection. I also assume, you have discussed this with them that you are taking cues from them, and probably check with them, and that they may be assisting you.

BTW, folks, (I won't be paying attention), but be sure someone explains, why, in Matthew, (and Matthew alone), (27:51), it says "the earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many". .....so it seems this zombie invasion was not limited to only Jeebus, but actually "many" rose from the dead, and they were jumping around a lot of never found split rocks. Why were not one of these "others" reported, or documented, or mentioned by anyone, ever. Why did not the authorities of the city send out the cops to round up the zombies ? Did they "go back to sleep" ??? What the hell happened to all these others ? Where are all the other opened, empty tombs ? Why was there no earthquake documented in any historical record ? Why was the "tearing" of the curtain in most important site in ancient Judaism never recorded by anyone else ? Why did all the other gospel writers miss the split rocks and all the other resurrections ? BTW, the "fallen asleep" line proves, that they thought dead people, had not really died, but "fallen asleep". including Jeebus.

In saying Jesus physically rose from the dead, Christians are creating an actual case of a form, or class, of UNIQUE, supposed "physical" bodies, which we are to take as a "physical" body, but is not really a "physical" body, in the sense that anyone else, in science or human language has ever before, or since, used that word. (another form of Special Pleading). No this is a "real body", but it needs no food, or drink, or sleep, and comports to no other known physical laws, but, we are supposed to think it's a "real physical body". So it's not really what we, or anyone actually mean, when they say the words "physical" body. It's a "special" something, which we are to accept, (on faith), but whatever it is, is not really a *physical* body in the same sense, that humans use those words, in the English language, when they say those words. If it really was a physical body, then where is it ? If it actually existed in the physical universe, then it either has to be somewhere in the physical universe, still, (and this means they actually think heaven is a physical "place", and we can ask "where is that ?"), or the whole thing is bullshit. So what is it, and where is it ? It's a "something". But in the English language, it's not a "physical body", with the (same) properties of a physical body. If the words, "physical body" have any meaning, and they do not have the same "physical properties", (as any other physical object does), then, saying those words, is meaningless.

Yup. It's a zombie body.

If you want to debate zombies, knock yourselves out.

As the videos above have proven, your crowd, and especially Craig, does not really in the end care about any debate. He believes, because he believes. His OWN theology tells him he was capriciously granted the gift of faith, and he makes the leap, because for some unknown reason, he makes the leap.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-08-2012, 07:28 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 04:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 09:56 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Bucky Ball, I understand that it upsets you that I won't adhere to your standards of what you think I should and should not do in an argument.
I didn't ask you to join the conversation, it's up to you.
But I will note that I don't think it's irrational to focus on just one topic at a time.

Now, if you wanted to discuss the other claims at a later argument, then maybe we could do that. It's not that I am completely shutting you down on what you're saying, I just don't want to add unnecessary material to the debate.
In fact, it's interesting what you're saying. I haven't really even heard about what you're talking about until now. So I wouldn't mind doing some research on these claims you're talking about. You might have to give me some resources to look up (aside from the videos you posted).

For now, those subjects aren't a part of the discussion (as far as I can tell) and it's mainly going to be focused on the individual claim of Jesus' resurrection.


That's why we have the debates,
We have to try and figure this stuff out ^_^

1. No one is upset. This subject is a dead horse. It's not an open question, for anyone here, except, apparently you. I "figured out" that zombies were not real, in First Grade.

2. I did not ask you to focus on multiple points. I asked you to discuss the standards of evidence, to focus on your one point, that you will accept, in order to accept a (supposed) historical event, in a general way, before entering a "discussion". Then I asked you, after accepting the standards of evidence that you will use to accept this supposed historical event, to be consistent, and agree that you will accept the SAME standards for other "historical" events. You refused. That tells me one thing. You refuse to be consistent, and intellectually honest, and know, that you really would NOT accept the same standards of evidence for other events, and are afraid you will made a fool of. If the standards of evidence are good for this supposed "historical" event, they are good for all historical events. I'm not asking you to focus on another topic. I'm asking for consistency in ALL topics, and that you agree to it, before we start.

3. This is not a debate. This is a "discussion". I would assume, that you, being fresh from "On Guard", think you're going to use the Habermas crap to attempt to "prove" the resurrection. I also assume, you have discussed this with them that you are taking cues from them, and probably check with them, and that they may be assisting you.

BTW, folks, (I won't be paying attention), but be sure someone explains, why, in Matthew, (and Matthew alone), (27:51), it says "the earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many". .....so it seems this zombie invasion was not limited to only Jeebus, but actually "many" rose from the dead, and they were jumping around a lot of never found split rocks. Why were not one of these "others" reported, or documented, or mentioned by anyone, ever. Why did not the authorities of the city send out the cops to round up the zombies ? Did they "go back to sleep" ??? What the hell happened to all these others ? Where are all the other opened, empty tombs ? Why was there no earthquake documented in any historical record ? Why was the "tearing" of the curtain in most important site in ancient Judaism never recorded by anyone else ? Why did all the other gospel writers miss the split rocks and all the other resurrections ? BTW, the "fallen asleep" line proves, that they thought dead people, had not really died, but "fallen asleep". including Jeebus.

In saying Jesus physically rose from the dead, Christians are creating an actual case of a form, or class, of UNIQUE, supposed "physical" bodies, which we are to take as a "physical" body, but is not really a "physical" body, in the sense that anyone else, in science or human language has ever before, or since, used that word. (another form of Special Pleading). No this is a "real body", but it needs no food, or drink, or sleep, and comports to no other known physical laws, but, we are supposed to think it's a "real physical body". So it's not really what we, or anyone actually mean, when they say the words "physical" body. It's a "special" something, which we are to accept, (on faith), but whatever it is, is not really a *physical* body in the same sense, that humans use those words, in the English language, when they say those words. If it really was a physical body, then where is it ? If it actually existed in the physical universe, then it either has to be somewhere in the physical universe, still, (and this means they actually think heaven is a physical "place", and we can ask "where is that ?"), or the whole thing is bullshit. So what is it, and where is it ? It's a "something". But in the English language, it's not a "physical body", with the (same) properties of a physical body.

Yup. It's a zombie body.

If you want to debate zombies, knock yourselves out.

As the videos above have proven, your crowd, and especially Craig, does not really in the end care about any debate. He believes, because he believes. His OWN theology tells him he was capriciously granted the gift of faith, and he makes the leap, because for some unknown reason, he makes the leap.

Bucky, just stop. I think Ideas wants an honest discussion. He is doing the best he can with finding evidence, and just because you think you may know the ending of that research, doesn't mean you have the right to rudely point this out.

I think that discussing this might add much more insight into why theists believe the way they do, as well for Paul to understand Atheistic objections to one of the most sacred tennets of the faith.

I am willing to talk to him, and am willing to agree with the rules.

He is currently searching FOR OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE SOURCES. And if he finds some, well, we'll see if I, or anybody else, can respond to them.

In short: this will be a learning expierence for us, and for him.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
08-08-2012, 07:34 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 07:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I want the discussion to be one Skeptic against one Theist.

Never argue with a fool. Bystanders may not be able to tell the difference.

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 07:50 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 04:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1. No one is upset. This subject is a dead horse. It's not an open question, for anyone here, except, apparently you. I "figured out" that zombies were not real, in First Grade.

2. I did not ask you to focus on multiple points. I asked you to discuss the standards of evidence, to focus on your one point, that you will accept, in order to accept a (supposed) historical event, in a general way, before entering a "discussion". Then I asked you, after accepting the standards of evidence that you will use to accept this supposed historical event, to be consistent, and agree that you will accept the SAME standards for other "historical" events. You refused. That tells me one thing. You refuse to be consistent, and intellectually honest, and know, that you really would NOT accept the same standards of evidence for other events, and are afraid you will made a fool of. If the standards of evidence are good for this supposed "historical" event, they are good for all historical events. I'm not asking you to focus on another topic. I'm asking for consistency in ALL topics, and that you agree to it, before we start.

Do you dip out on every discussion when others don't go by your "rational guidelines"? This conversation we're having here seems to show your insecurities.

A Theist comes in here wanting to have a discussion about something you should be able to beat to the ground no matter what they do. Instead, you tell me that after the debate I need to adhere to your guidelines, and when I told you that's irrelevant to the debate, you quickly jumped out.
Good thing you won't be in the discussion then, it's not a good place for uncivil children that whine when they don't get what they want.
Thumbsup

(08-08-2012 04:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  3. This is not a debate. This is a "discussion". I would assume, that you, being fresh from "On Guard", think you're going to use the Habermas crap to attempt to "prove" the resurrection. I also assume, you have discussed this with them that you are taking cues from them, and probably check with them, and that they may be assisting you.

Whatever I choose to use in the discussion, if it matters so much to you, then you must not be very confident of your own position.

If I am using ridiculous material, as Superluminal is saying, then it shouldn't be hard for you to explain why that is, and debunk the whole matter yourself.
Aren't you, as the Atheist, supposed to be good at this by now?
Instead, you dip out and complain.
Hope that works out for you.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 07:58 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 07:28 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Bucky, just stop.

As I've said to others before, and no doubt will again, .. if I need any advice, I'll be sure and ask.

Meanwhile, you are not the forum hall monitor.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: