Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
thrillobyte started a string entitled "A Challenge for Christians: Show Us Your Very Best Proof For Jesus." That string was restricted to extra-Biblical evidence on the existence of Jesus however. So I began this string with no restrictions at all. You Christians who genuinely believe that Jesus was not only actually resurrected from the dead, but that he subsequently flew off up into the sky, please provide your best evidence and rationale for believing that to be true. And for those of you who consider this to be a trap, of course I intend to rebut your claims. But if your claims are valid, my efforts to rebut them will not only be useless, they will be obviously useless. So how can you lose? The only thing you have to fear, perhaps, is discovering that your reasons for believing that Jesus was resurrected from the dead were nothing but empty claims and baseless assertions all along. If your beliefs are nonsense, you would like to know that. Wouldn't you? Or is it a fact that you prefer to continue believing a comforting lie then to know the truth?
Simply establish that believing that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is a reasonable thing to believe. That's all I am asking for.
Proof and then I'll believe? Ha ha ha, religion is just not that easy. There will always be "faith" involved. There will always need to be your free choice.
Is this a trap? No, of course there will not be solid evidence today that Jesus was resurrected.
So it never happened? That's probably the easiest thing to believe, and you are certainly free to choose that belief. But it seems to bother you.
Because there is no proof, does that in and of itself prove it did not happen? Perhaps to you, yes. In that case, I hope you have found your peace. But to many, there is enough other information and history to make them believe.
Are all Christians 100% convinced in their hearts that everything happened for sure? I will tell you no - we all have some doubt. It is hard to fully believe and have that faith. But for me personally, there is enough there - enough information, enough sacrifice of others, enough help, enough teaching by others, enough peace and joy in my life when I turn to God - that yes, I have come to believe that Jesus lived, taught, was resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven.
It's not an easy road. "Easy" is to just deny everything and rationalize it away. But "easy" does not bring lasting fulfillment.
Proof and then I'll believe? Ha ha ha, religion is just not that easy. There will always be "faith" involved. There will always need to be your free choice.
Is this a trap? No, of course there will not be solid evidence today that Jesus was resurrected.
So it never happened? That's probably the easiest thing to believe, and you are certainly free to choose that belief. But it seems to bother you.
Because there is no proof, does that in and of itself prove it did not happen? Perhaps to you, yes. In that case, I hope you have found your peace. But to many, there is enough other information and history to make them believe.
Are all Christians 100% convinced in their hearts that everything happened for sure? I will tell you no - we all have some doubt. It is hard to fully believe and have that faith. But for me personally, there is enough there - enough information, enough sacrifice of others, enough help, enough teaching by others, enough peace and joy in my life when I turn to God - that yes, I have come to believe that Jesus lived, taught, was resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven.
It's not an easy road. "Easy" is to just deny everything and rationalize it away. But "easy" does not bring lasting fulfillment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Proof and then I'll believe? Ha ha ha, religion is just not that easy. There will always be "faith" involved. There will always need to be your free choice.
In other words a person needs to be willing to be gullible. But why should gullibility be a necessary requirement? Why should a person look at a claim and be forced to conclude that, yes this appears to be silly but I am determined to believe it anyway? And why should this level of abject gullibility be considered a virtue? Things which are true have the appearance of being true because they conform to common experience. Things which contradict all common experience and common sense invariably are those things which are not true. If a religious claim contradicts all common experience and common sense and then tells you that blessed are the gullible and having faith that it is true, that should be a warning flag. Just as it is a warning flag for any claim. Being told to believe something entirely on faith is like succumbing to the Jedi mind trick. And we know what kind of minds are susceptible to the Jedi mind trick. The particular Jedi mind trick known as Christianity seems to be an intentional attempt to separate the weak minded from those with the ability to think for themselves. The weak minded will inherit the earth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Is this a trap? No, of course there will not be solid evidence today that Jesus was resurrected.
The evidence is not there. Which is why the virtues of faith and abject gullibility are necessarily extolled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
So it never happened? That's probably the easiest thing to believe, and you are certainly free to choose that belief. But it seems to bother you.
According to the Qur'an, the prophet Muhammad took a night journey to heaven aboard a flying steed named Baraq (lightning flash). In heaven he visited Jesus, the prophets, the angels and God himself. I am free to choose what I believe, or do not believe, based on some association to realistic possibility. Flying steeds and flying flying reanimated corpses rank high on my list of total nonsense I am afraid. And for good reason. I am not an enthusiastic supporter in the story of the flying reindeer either, if truth be known. But my gullibility quotient level is admittedly very low.
Efforts to teach bogus science to school children bothers me, I must admit. So does working diligently to elect a large orange buffoon to the office of the president. The objective is to shine a light of religious claims, exposing just how silly they are and always have been. And then allow them to erode away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Because there is no proof, does that in and of itself prove it did not happen? Perhaps to you, yes. In that case, I hope you have found your peace. But to many, there is enough other information and history to make them believe.
I notice that we have absolutely NO proof or evidence that reindeer can or ever have flown. Should that stand as evidence that they do not and can not? Isn't that kind of the way we determine what is true and probable, and what is untrue and improbable? An event which contradicts all common experience and common sense, not to mention medical science and the laws of physics, YES, that would require extraordinary proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Are all Christians 100% convinced in their hearts that everything happened for sure? I will tell you no - we all have some doubt. It is hard to fully believe and have that faith. But for me personally, there is enough there - enough information, enough sacrifice of others, enough help, enough teaching by others, enough peace and joy in my life when I turn to God - that yes, I have come to believe that Jesus lived, taught, was resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven.
There are currently something in the neighborhood of 44,000 Christian denominations. Christians disagree on much. Virtually all Christians agree that Jesus returned to life, and that his corpse flew off up into the sky however. It the basic platform of Christian belief. Because it very explicitly says so in the Christian book of religious reality. Is this a reasonable thing to believe. NO, of course not! It is a perfectly silly thing to believe. And this is where blind faith and abject gullibility enter the picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
It's not an easy road. "Easy" is to just deny everything and rationalize it away. But "easy" does not bring lasting fulfillment.
Believing in Christianity as an adult would seem to be even more difficult than believing in Santa Claus. Both stories contain claims which seem to define that which is silly. But the story of Christianity is longer and more elaborate. Which results in it being even sillier, in the long run. I suppose believing in Santa would also being a measure of fulfillment, even as an adult. But that would strain the concept of what it is to be an adult.
In other words a person needs to be willing to be gullible. But why should gullibility be a necessary requirement?
Gullible? Convient twist in words, but no, I don't think you can take what I said and simply say it's being gullible. This is where we would disagree.
People believe things in science all the time. Things that later change. Why should all science be believed? Proof for much of it, sure. But even things that we thought were once proven are later found inaccurate.
People believe teachings from others all the time. Most everything you learn in school, in books, on the news is because you trust the person sharing the information. Are you being gullible?
This is how Christians and others of faith feel. That they are learning from a trustworthy source. Athiests do not believe that the source is trustworthy.
Some hear news from CNN and FOX and think it is trustworthy. Others wouldn't believe anything on any of those news channels. So are we all gullible?
So if a person has done due diligence (for them), and believes something, I don't think you can equate that with being gullible.
Quote:
The evidence is not there.
This is exactly what I said. You will never get your rock solid evidence. But the absence does not prove that God does not exist. However if you interpret it as such, you are certainly free to believe that, just as we should be free to believe He exists.
Quote:
There are currently something in the neighborhood of 44,000 Christian denominations. Christians disagree on much. Virtually all Christians agree that Jesus returned to life, and that his corpse flew off up into the sky however. It the basic platform of Christian belief. Because it very explicitly says so in the Christian book of religious reality. Is this a reasonable thing to believe. NO, of course not! It is a perfectly silly thing to believe. And this is where blind faith and abject gullibility enter the picture.
Because one person finds it hard to believe does not mean it is a silly thing to believe. I'm sure at one point people said you'd be silly to think the earth is anything but flat.
Quote:
Believing in Christianity as an adult would seem to be even more difficult than believing in Santa Claus. Both stories contain claims which seem to define that which is silly. But the story of Christianity is longer and more elaborate. Which results in it being even sillier, in the long run. I suppose believing in Santa would also being a measure of fulfillment, even as an adult. But that would strain the concept of what it is to be an adult.
What you believe and how you come to believe it goes a long way to the first part of this post. If you believe anything anyone says, you may be gullible. If you question something, research it, research the sources, then come to believe it, good for you. But if someone sees something the other way, you can't just say they are being silly.
Gullible? Convient twist in words, but no, I don't think you can take what I said and simply say it's being gullible. This is where we would disagree.
How else would you explain unquestioningly accepting the story of a corpse coming back to life and then flying away? Gullible is EXACTLY the right word. Gullible and faith go hand in hand.
People believe things in science all the time. Things that later change. Why should all science be believed? Proof for much of it, sure. But even things that we thought were once proven are later found inaccurate.
There is at least some meager reason for supposing that science is on the right track. Are we really having this conversation? Then there is good reason to suppose that the computer you are sitting at actually works. Does your smart phone seem to function as advertised? Well, there you go. Believing that a man who lived 2,000 years ago is about to return anything now, despite an undeniable 2,000 year record of being DEAD WRONG, now THAT'S being gullible.
People believe teachings from others all the time. Most everything you learn in school, in books, on the news is because you trust the person sharing the information. Are you being gullible?[/quote]
I'm 69 years old. I have an actual history of events in my memory to fall back on. So when CNN says something that conforms with what I have experienced in the past and know to be true from experience, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand when right wing radio informs it's audience that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are running a child slavery ring from the basement of a DC pizza parlor, or that NASA has a secret base on Mars where they are hiding enslaved kidnapped children, let's just say that I have had enough exposure to bovine excrement over the course of my life to be, well, a little skeptical. You know... the opposite of gullible.
It is possible to double check information in this age of instant information. If something seems implausible, CHECK IT OUT!
And here is the genius who shot up the pizza parlor because he heard on Alex Jones' radio program that it was a child trafficking operation. This is the result of a lifetime of gullibility programming turned into physical action. Because stupid is as stupid does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
This is how Christians and others of faith feel. That they are learning from a trustworthy source. Athiests do not believe that the source is trustworthy.
Believers, being programmed their entire lives to be gullible, are willing to swallow down the story that the earth once stopped it's rotation for about 24 hours at a command from Joshua, the whole Noah deal, the whole Jonah riding around in a big fish deal, hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem, and the story of Jesus returning to life and flying away. Not to mention a child trafficking pizza parlor. Atheists tend to maintain some measure of skepticism, this is true. It's not that hard. If a story has a strong odor of bovine associated with it, be skeptical.
Believers accept the Bible as a trustworthy source because they have been programmed from their earliest memory to do so. And yet the Bible is filled with claims that seem to be the most obvious of nonsense. You should probably spend some time considering that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Some hear news from CNN and FOX and think it is trustworthy. Others wouldn't believe anything on any of those news channels. So are we all gullible?
Even Fox is beginning to call Trump out for his bovine pronouncements. Who'a thunk it? Fox, who for years bent the truth so far out of shape that it was barely recognizable, has encountered an individual who quite literally thinks that whatever pops into his head must therefore be the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
So if a person has done due diligence (for them), and believes something, I don't think you can equate that with being gullible.
People around the world overwhelmingly accept the religious beliefs of their parents as true and beyond challenge. I believe it because my mommy said so it NOT due diligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
This is exactly what I said. You will never get your rock solid evidence. But the absence does not prove that God does not exist. However if you interpret it as such, you are certainly free to believe that, just as we should be free to believe He exists.
I find that I cannot produce any evidence that Santa does NOT live in a workshop at the North Pole with his elves and flying reindeer. Should I leave the door open a crack, just in case it should prove to be true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
Because one person finds it hard to believe does not mean it is a silly thing to believe. I'm sure at one point people said you'd be silly to think the earth is anything but flat.
silly
[sil-ee]
adjective.
1. weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish:
2. absurd; ridiculous; irrational: Silly | Define Silly at Dictionary.com
Would you consider an adult who genuinely believes in flying reindeer silly? I suspect you would. What about an adult who believes that it is possible to ride a flying beast up to heaven? We can look out into space for billions of light years. There's no heaven there. But a couple of billion Muslims believe the Night Journey story with absolute certainty. What about an adult who believes that a corpse once flew up to heaven? Or twice, if you subscribe to the ascension of Mary story. Do you REALLY notice any difference in the level of silliness involved in believing these things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMN
What you believe and how you come to believe it goes a long way to the first part of this post. If you believe anything anyone says, you may be gullible. If you question something, research it, research the sources, then come to believe it, good for you. But if someone sees something the other way, you can't just say they are being silly.
If you believe things that otherwise conform to obvious nonsense, you may be gullible. If you believe that the baby Jesus was born in the back of a Ford pick-up, you may be a gullible redneck.
Gullible? Convient twist in words, but no, I don't think you can take what I said and simply say it's being gullible. This is where we would disagree.
People believe things in science all the time. Things that later change. Why should all science be believed? Proof for much of it, sure. But even things that we thought were once proven are later found inaccurate.
People believe teachings from others all the time. Most everything you learn in school, in books, on the news is because you trust the person sharing the information. Are you being gullible?
This is how Christians and others of faith feel. That they are learning from a trustworthy source. Athiests do not believe that the source is trustworthy.
Some hear news from CNN and FOX and think it is trustworthy. Others wouldn't believe anything on any of those news channels. So are we all gullible?
So if a person has done due diligence (for them), and believes something, I don't think you can equate that with being gullible.
This is exactly what I said. You will never get your rock solid evidence. But the absence does not prove that God does not exist. However if you interpret it as such, you are certainly free to believe that, just as we should be free to believe He exists.
Because one person finds it hard to believe does not mean it is a silly thing to believe. I'm sure at one point people said you'd be silly to think the earth is anything but flat.
What you believe and how you come to believe it goes a long way to the first part of this post. If you believe anything anyone says, you may be gullible. If you question something, research it, research the sources, then come to believe it, good for you. But if someone sees something the other way, you can't just say they are being silly.
We had someone here arguing that the world was flat.
He rejected all the evidence on the grounds you cite - he believed it firmly so it was true, and the others were not to be believed, as you can't trust people not to lie..
Chum, that is what you are saying. Faith is not a good reason to believe, valid evidence is. Evidence presented as in his 'horizon means a horizontal line' or 'look around - the horizon is flat' may have seemed silly, but to him it was evidence. But when it was explained how that thinking was wrongheaded and false, to refuse to listen and rely on faith is worse than silly; it is closed -minded and denialist.
Thus the gospel story exists and I at least accept that good reason is needed to regard it as not reliable. I'm willing to present those reasons and I hope one day they will become as accepted as the evidence for the world not being flat.
Appeals to faith or 'we can't be sure of everything' would not be accepted for a minute, and I don't accept them now. Only good reasons to believe the Gospels. So far we have had no good reasons, only bad ones.
If Santa is not real why has he got his own postal code?
This shooter of the pizzeria parlor is one of the real victims. He fell to one of the many right wing and religious scams and conspiracies and now he goes to jail and the talking mouths get bigger paychecks. And before you jump all over me claiming that I called your religion a scam that is not what I said. There are people using both politics and religion to foster fear and anger amongst many and from that comes hatred, bigotry and of times violence setting people against others, often the group with the least power are the targents. The pizza palour sex ring of Alex Jones, the anti gay of Manning or Swainson, that Democrats are the anti Christ and so forh. Or the ones attacking abortion clinis, more victims of the rhederic as well as those working in lawful places. Its the anger rapid and the pliable within the fundamentalists of any religion are the farm team for these leaders for lack of a better word.
The Alex Jones and Bryan Fischer of this world that need to be held accountable for their knowingly false and defamatory statements, held reponse blessed by the police and the courts, by atheist and moderate Christians but if they will not be held responsible by their fellow fundamentalist community it will only get worse. I do have great empathy for this man, just doing something to protect the lives and souls of innocent children but instead all he did was endangered lives of real people and added to the coffers of media moguls. And only hushed from the religious
If Santa is not real why has he got his own postal code?
This shooter of the pizzeria parlor is one of the real victims. He fell to one of the many right wing and religious scams and conspiracies and now he goes to jail and the talking mouths get bigger paychecks. And before you jump all over me claiming that I called your religion a scam that is not what I said. There are people using both politics and religion to foster fear and anger amongst many and from that comes hatred, bigotry and of times violence setting people against others, often the group with the least power are the targents. The pizza palour sex ring of Alex Jones, the anti gay of Manning or Swainson, that Democrats are the anti Christ and so forh. Or the ones attacking abortion clinis, more victims of the rhederic as well as those working in lawful places. Its the anger rapid and the pliable within the fundamentalists of any religion are the farm team for these leaders for lack of a better word.
The Alex Jones and Bryan Fischer of this world that need to be held accountable for their knowingly false and defamatory statements, held reponse blessed by the police and the courts, by atheist and moderate Christians but if they will not be held responsible by their fellow fundamentalist community it will only get worse. I do have great empathy for this man, just doing something to protect the lives and souls of innocent children but instead all he did was endangered lives of real people and added to the coffers of media moguls. And only hushed from the religious
North Pole Alaska, 99705, is an actual city.
On the one hand is is possible to feel some sympathy for the shooter, Edgar Welch, for being so gullible. He's been lied to his entire life and can't tell the difference. On the other hand it is comforting to know that someone that abjectly stupid is off the streets for a few years. Unfortunately there are millions more just like him out there, who are victims of right wing conspiracy theories, who have also been lied to their entire lives, and also cannot tell the difference between reality and utter nonsense.
There is at least some meager reason for supposing that science is on the right track. Are we really having this conversation? Then there is good reason to suppose that the computer you are sitting at actually works. Does your smart phone seem to function as advertised? Well, there you go. Believing that a man who lived 2,000 years ago is about to return anything now, despite an undeniable 2,000 year record of being DEAD WRONG, now THAT'S being gullible.
I'm 69 years old. I have an actual history of events in my memory to fall back on. So when CNN says something that conforms with what I have experienced in the past and know to be true from experience, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand when right wing radio informs it's audience that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are running a child slavery ring from the basement of a DC pizza parlor, or that NASA has a secret base on Mars where they are hiding enslaved kidnapped children, let's just say that I have had enough exposure to bovine excrement over the course of my life to be, well, a little skeptical. You know... the opposite of gullible.
It is possible to double check information in this age of instant information. If something seems implausible, CHECK IT OUT!
And here is the genius who shot up the pizza parlor because he heard on Alex Jones' radio program that it was a child trafficking operation. This is the result of a lifetime of gullibility programming turned into physical action. Because stupid is as stupid does.
Believers, being programmed their entire lives to be gullible, are willing to swallow down the story that the earth once stopped it's rotation for about 24 hours at a command from Joshua, the whole Noah deal, the whole Jonah riding around in a big fish deal, hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem, and the story of Jesus returning to life and flying away. Not to mention a child trafficking pizza parlor. Atheists tend to maintain some measure of skepticism, this is true. It's not that hard. If a story has a strong odor of bovine associated with it, be skeptical.
Believers accept the Bible as a trustworthy source because they have been programmed from their earliest memory to do so. And yet the Bible is filled with claims that seem to be the most obvious of nonsense. You should probably spend some time considering that.
Even Fox is beginning to call Trump out for his bovine pronouncements. Who'a thunk it? Fox, who for years bent the truth so far out of shape that it was barely recognizable, has encountered an individual who quite literally thinks that whatever pops into his head must therefore be the truth.
People around the world overwhelmingly accept the religious beliefs of their parents as true and beyond challenge. I believe it because my mommy said so it NOT due diligence.
I find that I cannot produce any evidence that Santa does NOT live in a workshop at the North Pole with his elves and flying reindeer. Should I leave the door open a crack, just in case it should prove to be true?
silly
[sil-ee]
adjective.
1. weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish:
2. absurd; ridiculous; irrational: Silly | Define Silly at Dictionary.com
Would you consider an adult who genuinely believes in flying reindeer silly? I suspect you would. What about an adult who believes that it is possible to ride a flying beast up to heaven? We can look out into space for billions of light years. There's no heaven there. But a couple of billion Muslims believe the Night Journey story with absolute certainty. What about an adult who believes that a corpse once flew up to heaven? Or twice, if you subscribe to the ascension of Mary story. Do you REALLY notice any difference in the level of silliness involved in believing these things?
If you believe things that otherwise conform to obvious nonsense, you may be gullible. If you believe that the baby Jesus was born in the back of a Ford pick-up, you may be a gullible redneck.
Long post, but I do appreciate the information. I totally understand where you are coming from. But yes, I would disagree or have opposing viewpoints for almost everything you said. But it would do little good for either of us to rehash the same points over and over.
There are millions of people here in America with gullible or silly beliefs every day, and that has nothing to do with religion. There are tons of news stories, real and fake, tons of rumors, that way too many people believe. So gullibility or silliness would not be anything solely related to religion.
But I wholeheartedly dispute and deny that all those who believe in God are gullible, and certainly think you are mis-using both words, and I'd even say the definitions you provide support my stance. On the topic of religion, sure, youth are taught a specific religion from their parents. Perhaps here, you could say they are "easily deceived", but certainly no parent would intentionally deceive their child on this issue. Should they blindly accept this their whole life? This is where I meant No, they should learn and do their own research when they are older, and make their own choice. And I would guess a large majority do this! We see that because some leave the faith for good, some leave for a while then learn more later and come back, some change Christian denominations, and some have their faith confirmed even more so by what they learned. And then, when they are fully informed themselves, they will continue the cycle to pass their faith to their children.
On the one hand is is possible to feel some sympathy for the shooter, Edgar Welch, for being so gullible. He's been lied to his entire life and can't tell the difference. On the other hand it is comforting to know that someone that abjectly stupid is off the streets for a few years. Unfortunately there are millions more just like him out there, who are victims of right wing conspiracy theories, who have also been lied to their entire lives, and also cannot tell the difference between reality and utter nonsense.
Of course, so deep run the delusions of the Pizzagate truthers that the Welch shooting has been asserted to be a 'false flag' operation meant to discredit them. In other words, every data point that exists backs up their claim. Even negative data points, because their existence is evidence of a diabolical conspiracy to conceal the truth.
If that reminds you immediately of the sort of insane logical knot into which religious believers routinely contort themselves, you're not alone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
