Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2012, 08:00 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 07:28 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  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.

I totally agree.
I haven't done many organized discussions before, so I am definitely trying to learn from this. But I can tell some people get upset about just some of the strangest things.
To me, this is not only a discussion but also a learning experience.
I'm also curious of the Atheist viewpoints on all the matters that I believe in. I think a good way of doing that is through discussion.

I really don't even know how this will pan out. It may turn into a minecraft party Tongue

Anyways, any material I use I will make sure it's available on this Thread. That way, you guys know where I'm coming from in what I say, so it's out in the open.

“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, 10:04 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
First of all, Ideas came here, and asked us for ideas to take to an apologetics conference, "as if" he couldn't even cook any good ones himself. We gave him bunch, most of which were mine.

For this, all I asked him was, to agree, that any "evidence", he would present, he would consider valid and acceptable, for other events, (ie a standard of evidence be established). He refused. I did not "dip out" on any argument. I have proven that I know more about your Babble, than anyone here, except for Mark Fulton, and I have more background in the OT than he does on that. So, you're welcome for the god damn conference questions. And, no sonny, I won't waste my time, with people who are not honest enough to agree up front to be consistent. And you can call me rude and childish from now till your Jeebus never comes home. I've seen too many so-called debates, that are set up with no ground rules. They are a waste of time. I don't go after beginners, down rabbit holes. As I said, knock yourselves out debating zombies.

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
08-08-2012, 10:32 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 07:28 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(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.

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.

Ato, don't be a dumbass.
Bucky was hardly being rude. If anything he was making extremely valid points.

Quote: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

You need to stop being a dumbass too.

They aren't his "rational guidelines", they're basic "rational guidelines". The courts follow them. Actual debates follow them. People in day to day life follow them, even theists. But somehow when religion is talked about all "rational guidelines" fly right out the window.
What if I was to use "Little red Riding Hood" fairytale as evidence for talking wolves?
You'd laugh at me and call my source non-rational.
This is the exact same thing.

You can't argue anything in the bible (Jesus, God, the great flood etc...) without not-arguing the actual bible itself.
Why?
Because like others have said, you need multiply sources. Stuff in the bible only occurs... in the bible. It's not a credible source.

If you are unwilling to accept this basic thing, then why anyone would waste their time arguing one of the most important events in your religion is beyond me.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
08-08-2012, 10:58 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 10:32 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 07:28 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  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.

Ato, don't be a dumbass.
Bucky was hardly being rude. If anything he was making extremely valid points.

Quote: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

You need to stop being a dumbass too.

They aren't his "rational guidelines", they're basic "rational guidelines". The courts follow them. Actual debates follow them. People in day to day life follow them, even theists. But somehow when religion is talked about all "rational guidelines" fly right out the window.
What if I was to use "Little red Riding Hood" fairytale as evidence for talking wolves?
You'd laugh at me and call my source non-rational.
This is the exact same thing.

You can't argue anything in the bible (Jesus, God, the great flood etc...) without not-arguing the actual bible itself.
Why?
Because like others have said, you need multiply sources. Stuff in the bible only occurs... in the bible. It's not a credible source.

If you are unwilling to accept this basic thing, then why anyone would waste their time arguing one of the most important events in your religion is beyond me.

He is trying to sewrch for outside the bible sources.

Btw... I will stop being a dumbassTongue I just think that if Paul( ideas) is honest ennough (which I think he is) he is going to not rely on the Bible. If he finds an secular source, and we refute it, and the only thing we can go on is the Bible, then maybe we can talk about the reliability.

I just want to a chance to discuss and bring evidence forward.

[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
08-08-2012, 11:06 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 10:58 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 10:32 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Ato, don't be a dumbass.
Bucky was hardly being rude. If anything he was making extremely valid points.


You need to stop being a dumbass too.

They aren't his "rational guidelines", they're basic "rational guidelines". The courts follow them. Actual debates follow them. People in day to day life follow them, even theists. But somehow when religion is talked about all "rational guidelines" fly right out the window.
What if I was to use "Little red Riding Hood" fairytale as evidence for talking wolves?
You'd laugh at me and call my source non-rational.
This is the exact same thing.

You can't argue anything in the bible (Jesus, God, the great flood etc...) without not-arguing the actual bible itself.
Why?
Because like others have said, you need multiply sources. Stuff in the bible only occurs... in the bible. It's not a credible source.

If you are unwilling to accept this basic thing, then why anyone would waste their time arguing one of the most important events in your religion is beyond me.

He is trying to sewrch for outside the bible sources.

Btw... I will stop being a dumbassTongue I just think that if Paul( ideas) is honest ennough (which I think he is) he is going to not rely on the Bible. If he finds an secular source, and we refute it, and the only thing we can go on is the Bible, then maybe we can talk about the reliability.

I just want to a chance to discuss and bring evidence forward.

Well the thing is, sure certain stuff in the bible's only source is the bible. BUT that means what do you have against it? Nothing, because all that exists on it is in the bible.

Sure maybe with something like the world being flat you can disprove that easily. But with resurrection of whats-his-face? Technically, there's no evidence against that. It's just generally accepted that ghosts aren't real because there's no evidence for them being real.

So, he's probably going to win (in his mind) because you have no evidence against it. But in reality, his evidence for it is shit.
It'd be like me with the talking wolves and the red riding hood fairytale saying wolves can talk in a world where wolves don't exist. You can't prove wolves can't talk (and so technically I would win), but in reality wolves wouldn't exist and so it's all sorta pointless...

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 11:37 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 11:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 10:58 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  He is trying to sewrch for outside the bible sources.

Btw... I will stop being a dumbassTongue I just think that if Paul( ideas) is honest ennough (which I think he is) he is going to not rely on the Bible. If he finds an secular source, and we refute it, and the only thing we can go on is the Bible, then maybe we can talk about the reliability.

I just want to a chance to discuss and bring evidence forward.

Well the thing is, sure certain stuff in the bible's only source is the bible. BUT that means what do you have against it? Nothing, because all that exists on it is in the bible.

Sure maybe with something like the world being flat you can disprove that easily. But with resurrection of whats-his-face? Technically, there's no evidence against that. It's just generally accepted that ghosts aren't real because there's no evidence for them being real.

So, he's probably going to win (in his mind) because you have no evidence against it. But in reality, his evidence for it is shit.
It'd be like me with the talking wolves and the red riding hood fairytale saying wolves can talk in a world where wolves don't exist. You can't prove wolves can't talk (and so technically I would win), but in reality wolves wouldn't exist and so it's all sorta pointless...
Here is the problem, you are NOT talking about Paul. Paul is much more homest than that, I have confidence in him to make the honest choice and admit he would have no evidence but the Bible.

And then we would talk about how the Bible is reliable or not, pending if the discussion goes that way, in which case we wait till Paul searches up on that, and we discuss again.

[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
09-08-2012, 12:45 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
There is no proof of the resurrection, arguing about it with Christians is an exercise in futility. However, I prefer the take by 2nd century CE Greek philosopher, Celsus, who said:

‘But we must examine this question whether anyone who really died ever rose again with the same body . . . But who saw this? A hysterical female, as you say, and perhaps some other one of those who were deluded by the same sorcery, who either dreamt in a certain state of mind and through wishful thinking had a hallucination due to some mistaken notion (an experience which has happened to thousands), or, which is more likely, wanted to impress others by telling this fantastic tale, and so by this cock-and-bull story to provide a chance for other beggars.’

Additionally, there were stories from the very earliest days of the cult that claimed Thomas, which means "twin" in Aramaic, was Jesus' brother and it was he that was mistaken for Zombie Jesus.

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2012, 12:47 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(09-08-2012 12:45 AM)Diogenes of Mayberry Wrote:  There is no proof of the resurrection, arguing about it with Christians is an exercise in futility. However, I prefer the take by 2nd century CE Greek philosopher, Celsus, who said:

‘But we must examine this question whether anyone who really died ever rose again with the same body . . . But who saw this? A hysterical female, as you say, and perhaps some other one of those who were deluded by the same sorcery, who either dreamt in a certain state of mind and through wishful thinking had a hallucination due to some mistaken notion (an experience which has happened to thousands), or, which is more likely, wanted to impress others by telling this fantastic tale, and so by this cock-and-bull story to provide a chance for other beggars.’

Additionally, there were stories from the very earliest days of the cult that claimed Thomas, which means "twin" in Aramaic, was Jesus' brother and it was he that was mistaken for Zombie Jesus.

I will enjoy the discussion and I will find something productive in it.

[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
09-08-2012, 12:51 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(08-08-2012 11:37 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Here is the problem, you are NOT talking about Paul. Paul is much more homest than that, I have confidence in him to make the honest choice and admit he would have no evidence but the Bible.

And then we would talk about how the Bible is reliable or not, pending if the discussion goes that way, in which case we wait till Paul searches up on that, and we discuss again.

According to Professor Bart Ehrman, in his book Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene:

‘Now, if the resurrection was an event that was to happen at the end of the age, what would an apocalypticist such as Paul naturally conclude if he came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead? He would conclude that the resurrection of the end of days had started—which meant he was living at the end of the age, and the whole thing was about to come to a crashing halt. And it was to be brought by Jesus.’

Now, given we are still here 2000 years later debating this nonsense, Paul was obviously completely mistaken . . . about everything.

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2012, 01:13 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(09-08-2012 12:51 AM)Diogenes of Mayberry Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 11:37 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Here is the problem, you are NOT talking about Paul. Paul is much more homest than that, I have confidence in him to make the honest choice and admit he would have no evidence but the Bible.

And then we would talk about how the Bible is reliable or not, pending if the discussion goes that way, in which case we wait till Paul searches up on that, and we discuss again.

According to Professor Bart Ehrman, in his book Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene:

‘Now, if the resurrection was an event that was to happen at the end of the age, what would an apocalypticist such as Paul naturally conclude if he came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead? He would conclude that the resurrection of the end of days had started—which meant he was living at the end of the age, and the whole thing was about to come to a crashing halt. And it was to be brought by Jesus.’

Now, given we are still here 2000 years later debating this nonsense, Paul was obviously completely mistaken . . . about everything.

Ummm... Paul is ideasonscribe... Thats his name.

[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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: