[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 12:36 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(22-01-2013 02:47 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  For reference, external evidence, means evidence outside the bibal.

And supported means the evidence is supported by another external piece.

This overlooks the fact that there is no equivalent or comparable historical text from that time which provides as much historical detail about a historical figure
as the Gospels do about Jesus of Nazareth.

The Gospel texts are separate historical documents which corroborate one another.

And these texts did not become part of The Bible until hundreds of years AFTER they were written. So asking for extra-biblical corroboration of the Gospels is ignorant.


No the gospel texts all come from the same tiny community, so asking for extra-biblical corroboration of the Gospels is rational and reasonable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-01-2013, 12:45 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 12:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I'm assuming you accept that medical science doesnt completely understand the difference between inanimate matter (body) and energy (volition/free will/soul) and I'm assuming the scientific explanation for your Lazarus Syndrome isnt some...'spontaneous random quantum weirdness' hypothesis by which the dead brain mysteriously re-animates. (That WOULD be spooky.) And if the claim is that the brain wasnt really ''dead'' in the first place what then causes it to spring back to life unexpectedly?
Volition, free will and souls are not definable as energy as such.

I suppose you could make the argument that volition and free will are resultant from the electrical energy in the brain, but they themselves are not energy. But free will doesn't really exist in any sense, the brain makes decisions before you are consciously aware of the decision anyway..

(Also, who said anything about the brain in regard to the Lazarus Syndrome? Aside from myself and Vosur, who pointed out that it's not actually resurrection because the heart shuts off, not the brain.)

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 12:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  ... the difference between inanimate matter (body) ...

ummm, there is nothing inanimate about the cells comprising Girly's body. They are quite animate and active and will continue to be so until my demise. Then and only then will they become inanimate. Silly. Tongue

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
26-01-2013, 12:56 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
And I give you nearly an hour of David Fitzgerald talking about the evidence for a historical Jesus.
In other words, you have the gospels vs all other historical books, authors of the time who make no mention of this character. It would be like tornado ripping through a city and no one writing about it, but then 70 years later, you begin to see people referencing the great tornado.




Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
26-01-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
@Vosur - No I can't. The two and a half hour case occurred in Malaysia, and I don't think the Malaysian medical system waits for brain death before declaring official death. I know of nothing that could revive a brain dead person.

@ Lion - I would like you to define "soul" please, as I personally to do not accept the existence of souls, unless the term is used to describe the emotions and thoughts produced by chemical reactions in the brain.

The reason we have not challenged God's motive is because it is irrelevant unless you can show he actually exists first. The motive of a non existent entity is not relevant to any discussion of whether an event in history happened or not. The gospels are not proof of God, and unless you can rule out every natural and every supernatural cause that isn't God, then the resurrection of Christ, even if it happened, is not evidence of God's existence either.

Nor do I accept the concept of free will. I think of choice as an illusion - when presented with several options, each person's genetic make up and life experiences make them predisposed towards one option more than the others, meaning that while it feels like a choice, no actual choice is present.

Currently there is no accepted scientific explanation of Lazarus Syndrome to my knowledge, it is a mystery. However Vosur, Free Thought and yourself are right in that "resurrection" occurs before brain death takes place, but after all organs have shut down. It is a sort of auto-resuscitation some time after CPR has ceased.

You also seem to have missed the point about the gospels. If there is no other comparative text with such detail, that does not speak towards the gospels having historical validity - indeed it makes them less valid because they have nothing to back them up. Just as any fiction book today would be the only source for information on it's characters (unless there's a movie made). Having one biased source is not a strong indicator of actual events, which is why we ask for other sources from outside the Bible that can verify what happened. If there are none, then it is highly unlikely that the events described did happen.

Further, the gospels do not corroborate each other. They contradict each other, making them even less valid for historical reference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like hedgehog648's post
26-01-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Genetics as opposed to free will you say, Hedgehog?

That is certainly an odd perspective, I would like to hear more of about that.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 01:38 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 12:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  ...In other words, you have the gospels vs all other historical books, authors of the time who make no mention of this character....

Well the claim that nobody makes mention of Jesus is simply false. (2 users Like Rahn127's post) Laughat

And yeah, We DO ''have'' the Gospels!
Just as we "have'' the writings of Tacitus and Josephus.
Saying that there is no mention of it is false. What you really are asking instead is...how come the Romans didnt publicise the apparent Resurrection of Jesus? Why didnt the prevailing Jewish authorities who Crucified Jesus help the Disciples get their work published?
Do you want me to explain why?

The really glaring absence is that of the missing counter-gospels?
Where are all the historical texts debunking Saul of Tarsus?
Why cant the Jesus mythers come up with historical texts showing that there never was a historical Jesus?

Its grossly disingenuous to demand extra biblical sources to corroborate one part of the Gospels, when the historical existence of Jesus is accepted almost universally by historians who would otherwise reject a historical Jesus if the Gospels didnt exist.

Why bother demanding secular corroboration of just page 49 of a book if you think there is no corroboration for any of the previous pages either? You could just dispose of everything in the bible by demanding page-by-page, extra-biblical corroboration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 01:40 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 01:21 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Genetics as opposed to free will you say, Hedgehog?

That is certainly an odd perspective, I would like to hear more of about that.
Genetics plus life experience - it's always important to include that.

For example when presented with the same set of options they have been presented with a number of times before (perhaps on a menu, say), someone may not opt for their initial preference, upon the basis that they have done so many times. In this case their life experience has intervened to make them more preferential to a different option.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 01:49 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
But where does the genetics come into play? That is the part I am curious about; It plays no part in the decision making process, unless you are factoring it in. The brain has already weighed and chosen the action before a person is consciously aware of the decision anyway..

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 01:38 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(26-01-2013 12:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  ...In other words, you have the gospels vs all other historical books, authors of the time who make no mention of this character....

Well the claim that nobody makes mention of Jesus is simply false. (2 users Like Rahn127's post) Laughat

And yeah, We DO ''have'' the Gospels!
Just as we "have'' the writings of Tacitus and Josephus.
Saying that there is no mention of it is false. What you really are asking instead is...how come the Romans didnt publicise the apparent Resurrection of Jesus? Why didnt the prevailing Jewish authorities who Crucified Jesus help the Disciples get their work published?
Do you want me to explain why?

The really glaring absence is that of the missing counter-gospels?
Where are all the historical texts debunking Saul of Tarsus?
Why cant the Jesus mythers come up with historical texts showing that there never was a historical Jesus?

Its grossly disingenuous to demand extra biblical sources to corroborate one part of the Gospels, when the historical existence of Jesus is accepted almost universally by historians who would otherwise reject a historical Jesus if the Gospels didnt exist.

Why bother demanding secular corroboration of just page 49 of a book if you think there is no corroboration for any of the previous pages either? You could just dispose of everything in the bible by demanding page-by-page, extra-biblical corroboration.
I love this post so much. Here we go:

1) You claim that there are other historical sources that talk about Jesus and his life. Ok, great. Provide some of them please.

2) The Romans would not have accepted the disciples explanation for the missing body, true. But did they ever make a record of one of their crucified prisoners' body disappearing? If it happened, and it was inspiring new ideas in their populace, then it would have been a good idea for them to have spread some sort of word about the body being stolen or burnt or moved. Any explanation that would make their citizens question the tales of resurrection.

Did they do anything like this? And if not, why not? Could it be because it never happened, so they saw no reason to act on it?


3) If you want to talk about Saul of Tarsus, there's a whole thread on him in here somewhere with lots of info, I can find it for you if you wish.

4) Yes historians have used the gospels to postulate the existence of someone who inspired those stories, but in the age we are talking about you would not need supernatural powers in order for this to happen. Even in modern times it can be done - Derren Brown managed to convince a room full of atheists that he was the Messiah in one of his tv shows. Imagine an act like Penn and Teller performing in the time of Jesus - people wouldn't have a clue that what they were doing wasn't genuine magic.

5) EXACTLY. We absolutely can dismiss the bible page by page based on whether it corroborated or not. That is how the study of history works. Biased texts intended to transmit a single point of view not backed up by anything else are not reliable evidence. If you can provide corroboration from sources that are not the bible about any of it's contents, then you lend some validity to that particular part of it's contents. Without that corroboration, there is no validity, and nobody should take it seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like hedgehog648's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  [split] Fruitcake-o-meter morondog 50 429 03-07-2014 10:41 AM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  [split] Coming Out And Ready To Crawl Back In. Jeremy E Walker 78 1,229 25-06-2014 07:18 PM
Last Post: Bucky Ball
  [split] I need to rant to other atheists. Jeremy E Walker 492 6,823 15-06-2014 09:47 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  [split] The Perfect Ideal World Created By Science Jeremy E Walker 14 238 04-06-2014 06:46 PM
Last Post: cjlr
  [split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available) Jeremy E Walker 46 669 03-06-2014 08:34 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  [split] Commentary on the viodjit vs. Drich "book of your religion" match Taqiyya Mockingbird 43 694 29-05-2014 08:08 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  [split from] Atheist because Jeremy E Walker 167 2,503 12-05-2014 09:06 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
Forum Jump: