Faith without any reason vs Faith without any evidence (disciple, suicide, Mary)
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.
By all means, PLEASE present some of that evidence, because, in the entire history of mankind, you are the One and ONLY person who actually has/had any evidence, whatsoever. Please, humanity beseeches you to produce it. It will be earthshaking news and bound to make all the major news outlets. I can see it now "Mankind Finally Finds Evidence in Support of the Existence of a Creator".
While your at it, perhaps you can answer this question?
If life was created by an all-powerful, all knowing "creator", why is so chock-full of deficiencies, issues, weaknesses, vulnerabilities/diseases and flaws.
In the meantime, I'll call the NY Times and all other major outlets informing them of this earth-shaking news.
I think hes saying more that he believes there is not that he has evidence that can be verified. Sort of like how people who believe in fairies see evidence for them in fairy-rings on their lawns.
I know that the existence of the external world (and other metaphysical concerns we haven't even talked about) are not validated data but things we believe without evidence. That's unless you count personal experience as evidence which, for obvious reasons, anti-theists are usually not willing to do.
I was going to look and see what this had to say, but the first sentence was "Science is falsely accused of proving God does not exist." I knew it was nonsense then, so I didn't bother to watch the slide show.
I was going to look and see what this had to say, but the first sentence was "Science is falsely accused of proving God does not exist." I knew it was nonsense then, so I didn't bother to watch the slide show.
Rather the longer quote:
"Science is falsely accused of proving God does not exist. It would be hard to create a bigger lie. While science cannot prove God does not exist, there is a mountain of scientific evidence pointing squarely at our Creator."
The bit you quoted was (I think) fair enough - science does not 'prove' that a god does not evist. But neither does it provide any decent evidence that it does, let alone a mountain of evidence.
This 'evidence' has been extensively discussed and shown to not really support the god -claim. The quote may not be deliberately intended to bamboozle; the writer may believe it, but it is false, all the same.
I know that the existence of the external world (and other metaphysical concerns we haven't even talked about) are not validated data but things we believe without evidence. That's unless you count personal experience as evidence which, for obvious reasons, anti-theists are usually not willing to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
And theists. And atheists. And scientists.
Unless you had another 'obvious' reason in mind?
Well of course! I mentioned anti-theists specifically because saying "Experience = evidence" would mean that the theists now had evidence for theism, and this would run contrary to the agenda of opposing theism
But you're right, I wouldn't want to equate the two either, and didn't assume the person I was talking to did. I was just asking for clarification.
Some people still don't get the difference between "reason" and "rationalization", either.
Anyway... a couple of observations, first about "evidence":
There is no evidence backing up Christianity. It is actually a matter of pride for even some humble Christians that they have faith without evidence. There is evidence that some things in the Christian Bible happened, but no evidence of the divine nature of the central tenets of Christianity, itself -- tenets that actually didn't even have primacy among Christians until centuries after Jesus. If there is any "evidence" in this context, it is evidence that at least some of these central tenets were fabricated, after-the-fact, and by those who weren't ever in Jesus' presence.
Similarly, there is no "evidence" of a creator. Again, the matter of debate is whether there is a "reason"-able argument defending the belief in a creator. Similarly, the claim that "a life changed" is "evidence" of a faith is a logical fallacy, in the absence of evidence that that kind of life change doesn't generally happen absent that faith. It might be a "reason" why someone believes in a faith. Similarly, while "a life changed" and "hope, confidence, truth, peace, joy, love, patience, self control, etc. -- growing out of my faith" can be "reasons" for faith, they're not "evidence".
In a nutshell, there is no evidence backing up Christianity or any faith: What is a matter of debate is whether there is reason (as opposed to just rationalization) for the faith. That is about which reasonable people disagree.
Next, about "reason":
The claim that "Jesus Christ and the Gospel truth of Salvation by grace through faith in Him alone" is "reason" for faith is circular reasoning, another logical fallacy. Reason, by definition, is logical. That word means something specific.
But something more subtle is going on here:
The extent to which faith abuses words in this manner is significant in itself. For centuries, faith without evidence or reason was its own reward. Even the justifying of scripture (providing arguments of reason for them) was itself heresy and persecuted as such specifically because it implied that scripture was subject to the crucible of reason. Faith was that which was "worthy". Fast forward into the modern age, where such assaults against human intelligence are no longer deemed acceptable. Faith has no choice but to react by way of seeking to co-opt the words that indicate to people these days that something is "worthy", words like "evidence" and "reason".
And it is also interesting that the forces in society promoting reactionaryism are, as part of that, promoting anti-intellectualism ... but that's another thread I suppose.
As usual, the best explanation is the one the Christian apologists never consider.
Who took the body out of the tomb? The ones who put it there. The tomb guard (aside that this is probably Matthew's invention as nobody else mentioned them) and the Jewish authorities would have no reason to remove the body, and the disciples were all supposed to be in hiding. Easily disposed of. But Arimathea had seen to the burial, wouldn't he be the one to remove the body? Remember, the tomb was open. Jesus didn't need the tomb to be open. He could float through walls. But somebody else would need to open the tomb to get Jesus out.
Why would he do this? Well, it was his own new tomb, wouldn't he remove Jesus secretly (because it isn't quite the Thing to tamper with the buried) and arrange for it to be taken elsewhere - perhaps sent back to Nazareth.
The objections to this would be that the disciples would eventually find out the truth - and what about all the resurrection appearances? Well, the gospel of Mark is known to end with the empty tomb. You can forget the angelic message of the Synoptic version because there is no angelic message in John. It was a tacked - on 'explanation' to 'prove' a resurrection. Whatever the disciples found out later on...was simply left out.
The mere angelic message wasn't good enough of course, so three utterly contradictory resurrection accounts were separately invented to have Jesus appear. And they were cobbled together to provide (later on) the resurrection appearances that Mark had somehow omitted.
So what about the 'disciples would not die for lie' apologetic? That they did is pretty much nothing more than Church tradition - tales made up by later Churchmen to provide the heroic deaths that Christianity needed. What happened to the disciples is anyone's guess. Died of old age, miserably seeing their Messianic Judaism dwindle and vanish, swamped by the gentile -friendly religion that Paul invented, or even died during the Jewish war? There is only the death of James and John in Acts, which is no more than Luke (surely the writer) acting out the prophecy of Zebedee's sons asking for seats in heaven. There is no more reason to believe the reported death in Acts than any of the other stuff there - like Paul's escaping a Jewish murder plot when he says himself that it was the Nabatean army that he was fleeing, or Gamaliel's speech, where he gets the revolt of Judas and the messianic effort of Theudas the wrong way round. And anyone who swallows that absurd hammock of wriggly things is beyond reason.
This is of course to assume that the crucifixion and burial was reliably reported. If it was, a plot to get Jesus off the cross alive is pretty much demonstrated by the account. And who is to say it went wrong? The overdone damage to Jesus reported in the video is probably more than a crucifixion victim would sustain, and the spear thrust (to make sure) is reported by none of the writers other than John. He even disagrees about the kind of burial -wrapping, not to mention the absurd lb 100 of spices supposed to be tucked away inside.
No, even if the story is substantially true, a real resurrection is the one thing that is NOT the probable explanation, let alone the Only one.
If I may match the exhortation at the end of that video, let me urge anyone who uses reason rather than faith to come to conclusions to reject these daft and incoherent fables in the New testament and see it for a big Lie that has been foisted on too many people over the last 2,000 years.
I just came across this. It is a video proving that the resurrection must have happened, because the tomb was empty.
Except Paul said you get a new spirit body in heaven, the one people have on earth stays here to rot. No one wants imperfect dead corpses wandering around heaven, do they?
So Jesus could not have been resurrected, and therefore the body must have been stolen, Or misplaced. Or Jesus was not dead, and walked out of the tomb to die of his wounds somewhere.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Except Paul said you get a new spirit body in heaven, the one people have on earth stays here to rot. No one wants imperfect dead corpses wandering around heaven, do they?
So Jesus could not have been resurrected, and therefore the body must have been stolen, Or misplaced. Or Jesus was not dead, and walked out of the tomb to die of his wounds somewhere.
His disciples didn't recognize him. He had a different "body" or was a spirit.
Except Paul said you get a new spirit body in heaven, the one people have on earth stays here to rot. No one wants imperfect dead corpses wandering around heaven, do they?
So Jesus could not have been resurrected, and therefore the body must have been stolen, Or misplaced. Or Jesus was not dead, and walked out of the tomb to die of his wounds somewhere.
Yes. I always thought it amusing that Jesus rose in a body which apparently was the old one, while everyone else seems to get a new one.
Of course, if Jesus was not dead, somebody still would have had to move the stone to get him out. The video addresses that problem but of course ignores the obvious answer - who, and why.
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.
where to put this?
