Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: jjohnjil on July 01, 2015, 09:09:23 AM
-
What was the point in Jesus coming back from the dead for just three days? What did he do in those three days that made it worthwhile? He was seen eating ... he was seen talking ... big deal!
If it was shown that after we die we will not really be dead for ever - it isn't very much to offer, is it? Another three days!
-
If Jesus really did resurrect why didn't he make sure everyone, including Herod and Pilate, see him?
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
You're right, Ad, so 40 days? What did he do?
-
He taught his apostles many things.
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
You're right, Ad, so 40 days? What did he do?
Amongst other things he appeared to some 500 people at one time according to 1 Corinthians 15. Then, he spent time with his disciples giving them additional teaching and instructions.
Out of interest, why do you ask?
-
He taught his apostles many things.
Act 1:1-6 NIV
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withfn water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
jj floo, what would be the point of showing himself to Pilate and Herod?
-
jj, what would be the point of showing himself to Pilate and Herod?
Alien, it was actually Floo who suggested this.
-
jj, what would be the point of showing himself to Pilate and Herod?
Alien, it was actually Floo who suggested this.
Ta.
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
You're right, Ad, so 40 days? What did he do?
Amongst other things he appeared to some 500 people at one time according to 1 Corinthians 15. Then, he spent time with his disciples giving them additional teaching and instructions.
Out of interest, why do you ask?
And yet we have never heard of any of these 500 telling us they ate and talked to Jesus, just a letter from someone years later saying that 500 had done this. Don't you find that strange?
Nor did any of the disciples say that saw him during that time.
You ask, why do I ask? It just seems a very short time to show people you can live forever - and to only 500! If he did it today, with the Internet, he could tell billions. Don't you think he picked a bad time to give this message seeing how it wasn't meant for a few but for all?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
-
I Jesus had been seen, the conclusion that most people would reach might be that he had never died.
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
Jesus convinced at least his mother and his half-brother James as James went on to lead the church in Jerusalem. What do you think convinced James?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
Jesus convinced at least his mother and his half-brother James as James went on to lead the church in Jerusalem. What do you think convinced James?
Did he convince his mother?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
Jesus convinced at least his mother and his half-brother James as James went on to lead the church in Jerusalem. What do you think convinced James?
What do you think convinced the yank who bought London Bridge? People do fall for things, Al!
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension; allegedly.
ippy
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?
A no to what?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?
Are you saying, Cyb, you wouldn't believe him either?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?
A no to what?
To the question I asked you!
-
I answered it!
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?
Are you saying, Cyb, you wouldn't believe him either?
Ah, the favourite technique of atheists with nothing to say - write "are you saying.." followed by something which clearly hasn't been said!
So, you're saying you hate cheeseburgers, then?
-
I answered it!
So, would you believe him or wouldn't you?
-
I answered it!
So, would you believe him or wouldn't you?
A real deity, rather than a mythical one as featured in the Bible, would have no problem convincing me and the rest of humanity it existed.
-
I answered it!
So, would you believe him or wouldn't you?
A real deity, rather than a mythical one as featured in the Bible, would have no problem convincing me and the rest of humanity it existed.
Would you believe him or wouldn't you?
-
I answered the question, can't you read? ::)
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
Jesus convinced at least his mother and his half-brother James as James went on to lead the church in Jerusalem. What do you think convinced James?
Did he convince his mother?
Acts 1:14.
-
I answered the question, can't you read? ::)
Yes, and I still don't know whether you would believe the man in my scenario or not.
Quoting a question and then writing stuff after it isn't necessarily answering it, you know
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
Jesus convinced at least his mother and his half-brother James as James went on to lead the church in Jerusalem. What do you think convinced James?
What do you think convinced the yank who bought London Bridge? People do fall for things, Al!
That would be the American who thought he was buying London Bridge and bought London Bridge? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2275097/The-batty-American-bought-London-Bridge-LONDON-BRIDGE-IN-AMERICA-BY-TRAVIS-ELBOROUGH.html
What do you think convinced James?
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension; allegedly.
ippy
AO, tut tut. Remember that you need to prove the existence of God, the inspiration of the Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus every time you get into a conversation with ippy.
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
Jesus convinced at least his mother and his half-brother James as James went on to lead the church in Jerusalem. What do you think convinced James?
What do you think convinced the yank who bought London Bridge? People do fall for things, Al!
That would be the American who thought he was buying London Bridge and bought London Bridge? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2275097/The-batty-American-bought-London-Bridge-LONDON-BRIDGE-IN-AMERICA-BY-TRAVIS-ELBOROUGH.html
What do you think convinced James?
As I wasn't around to ask him, Alan, I could hardly say. It may have been because it looked a good scam to go along with, who knows?
What do you think it was that convinced James, do you think it was brotherly love, because if he hadn't have been able to convince his own brother he could hardly have expected to convince anyone else!
Except the Alans of this world, of course.
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?
Are you saying, Cyb, you wouldn't believe him either?
Ah, the favourite technique of atheists with nothing to say - write "are you saying.." followed by something which clearly hasn't been said!
So, you're saying you hate cheeseburgers, then?
Ah, the favourite technique of theists with no answers - simply change the subject!
Yes, I don't mind cheeseburgers, Cyb, now would you have believed the guy you're hounding Floo about?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?
Are you saying, Cyb, you wouldn't believe him either?
Ah, the favourite technique of atheists with nothing to say - write "are you saying.." followed by something which clearly hasn't been said!
So, you're saying you hate cheeseburgers, then?
Ah, the favourite technique of theists with no answers - simply change the subject!
Yes, I don't mind cheeseburgers, Cyb, now would you have believed the guy you're hounding Floo about?
probably not. why do you ask?
-
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
1) Would you believe anyone who claimed to be 2000 years old?
2) In human form, even God can only be in one place at a time: by returning to heaven, he made it possible for the advocate/comforter/counsellor/... (aka the Holy Spirit) to be in more than one place at a time.
3) How much science is about belief? Have you actually experienced/been present at any of the simple experiments that shape modern scientific thinking, let alone any of the more complex ones?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?
Are you saying, Cyb, you wouldn't believe him either?
Ah, the favourite technique of atheists with nothing to say - write "are you saying.." followed by something which clearly hasn't been said!
So, you're saying you hate cheeseburgers, then?
Ah, the favourite technique of theists with no answers - simply change the subject!
Yes, I don't mind cheeseburgers, Cyb, now would you have believed the guy you're hounding Floo about?
probably not. why do you ask?
Because you seemed concerned whether or not Floo would believe him, why did you ask her?
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension; allegedly.
ippy
AO, tut tut. Remember that you need to prove the existence of God, the inspiration of the Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus every time you get into a conversation with ippy.
Yes but what's the point having a long involved discussion about magical mysterious supernatural subject here, that's has no supporting evidence, that in tern would make it worth the trouble if there were any reality in this magical mystical superstitious, at the moment, nonsense.
ippy
-
...
As I wasn't around to ask him, Alan, I could hardly say. It may have been because it looked a good scam to go along with, who knows?
What do you think it was that convinced James, do you think it was brotherly love, because if he hadn't have been able to convince his own brother he could hardly have expected to convince anyone else!
Except the Alans of this world, of course.
I would think meeting Jesus after his resurrection might possibly have had something to do with it. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension; allegedly.
ippy
AO, tut tut. Remember that you need to prove the existence of God, the inspiration of the Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus every time you get into a conversation with ippy.
Yes but what's the point having a long involved discussion about magical mysterious supernatural subject here, that's has no supporting evidence, that in tern would make it worth the trouble if there were any reality in this magical mystical superstitious, at the moment, nonsense.
ippy
Don't take part then.
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension; allegedly.
ippy
AO, tut tut. Remember that you need to prove the existence of God, the inspiration of the Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus every time you get into a conversation with ippy.
Yes but what's the point having a long involved discussion about magical mysterious supernatural subject here, that's has no supporting evidence, that in tern would make it worth the trouble if there were any reality in this magical mystical superstitious, at the moment, nonsense.
ippy
I do wonder why you take part in these discussions then.
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
I want to frame this post and put it on the wall for posterity :-*
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
I want to frame this post and put it on the wall for posterity :-*
Islam did a very similar thing too, are you and Alien Muslim/Christians then?
-
absolutely not they could have my head first
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension; allegedly.
ippy
AO, tut tut. Remember that you need to prove the existence of God, the inspiration of the Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus every time you get into a conversation with ippy.
Yes but what's the point having a long involved discussion about magical mysterious supernatural subject here, that's has no supporting evidence, that in tern would make it worth the trouble if there were any reality in this magical mystical superstitious, at the moment, nonsense.
ippy
I do wonder why you take part in these discussions then.
I find it fascinating that people are so willing to be taken in by such obviously man made nonsense, bit ghoulish I know, it's a bit like but not exactly like seeing the bearded lady, it's strange we're into the 21st century and we still have people that believe this stuff.
Come up with credible evidence I'll join you; can't see that'll ever be happening.
ippy
-
Yup! ;)
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
I want to frame this post and put it on the wall for posterity :-*
Islam did a very similar thing too, are you and Alien Muslim/Christians then?
As far as I understand the founder of Islam died at a grand age having been a successful temporal ruler who established an empire.
I don't know how similar that is to the life of Christ.
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
But it is only a matter of belief. If Jesus was really who he claimed to be, why did he jet up to heaven instead of sticking around to the present day after he 'resurrected', then there would be no doubt about it!
So, if there was some guy knocking around now claiming to be the risen Jesus, and saying he had been sticking around for two thousand years just so there could be no doubt, you would totally believe him? I don't think so.
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?
Are you saying, Cyb, you wouldn't believe him either?
Ah, the favourite technique of atheists with nothing to say - write "are you saying.." followed by something which clearly hasn't been said!
So, you're saying you hate cheeseburgers, then?
Ah, the favourite technique of theists with no answers - simply change the subject!
Yes, I don't mind cheeseburgers, Cyb, now would you have believed the guy you're hounding Floo about?
probably not. why do you ask?
Because you seemed concerned whether or not Floo would believe him, why did you ask her?
Because she had postulated that if Jesus had hung around all these years instead of, as she put it, jetting off to heaven, then everyone would believe.
You did read what led up to the question, I assume..?
-
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
Floo, you seem to forget that today some 2 billion people believe (or at least claim to believe) that Jesus was who he said he was. Not quite sure of the multiplier that involves when one remembers that there were probably only 18 or 20 such people at the time of his crucifixion - and about 120 by the time that Peter 'stood up and was bold' (Acts 1:15).
-
A real deity, rather than a mythical one as featured in the Bible, would have no problem convincing me and the rest of humanity it existed.
Do you have any evidence for that claim, Floo? ;D
If it is so, how would you expect such a 'real deity' to convince you?
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
What, you mean it would have caused the beginning of a new religion, three hundred years later the roman emperor would kneel and call Jesus King, and two thousand years later billions of people would still be going on about it? Is that the kind of thing you think would have happened?
I want to frame this post and put it on the wall for posterity :-*
Islam did a very similar thing too, are you and Alien Muslim/Christians then?
As far as I understand the founder of Islam died at a grand age having been a successful temporal ruler who established an empire.
I don't know how similar that is to the life of Christ.
Read Alien's post again and maybe you'll understand ... but I won't hold my breath.
-
A real deity, rather than a mythical one as featured in the Bible, would have no problem convincing me and the rest of humanity it existed.
Do you have any evidence for that claim, Floo? ;D
If it is so, how would you expect such a 'real deity' to convince you?
I would answer that question for myself by saying . You God is all knowing and all powerful, so he would know what would convince me, and be able to do it.
Your God has not done so, so either it does not care or does not exist.
-
What do you think it was that convinced James, do you think it was brotherly love, because if he hadn't have been able to convince his own brother he could hardly have expected to convince anyone else!
Don't know about you, jjohn (do you have siblings?) but not being able to convince one's brother or sister doesn't mean that one isn't who one claims to be.
-
What do you think it was that convinced James, do you think it was brotherly love, because if he hadn't have been able to convince his own brother he could hardly have expected to convince anyone else!
Don't know about you, jjohn (do you have siblings?) but not being able to convince one's brother or sister doesn't mean that one isn't who one claims to be.
It does if you are a God!
-
A real deity, rather than a mythical one as featured in the Bible, would have no problem convincing me and the rest of humanity it existed.
Do you have any evidence for that claim, Floo? ;D
If it is so, how would you expect such a 'real deity' to convince you?
I would answer that question for myself by saying . You God is all knowing and all powerful, so he would know what would convince me, and be able to do it.
Your God has not done so, so either it does not care or does not exist.
Why would He want to convince you? You are free to make your own choice. That is how Jesus taught: if you don't want to know, fine, leave it. Except, of course, you can't leave it. You seem to have made your own choice, so what are you blathering on about?
-
A real deity, rather than a mythical one as featured in the Bible, would have no problem convincing me and the rest of humanity it existed.
Do you have any evidence for that claim, Floo? ;D
If it is so, how would you expect such a 'real deity' to convince you?
I would answer that question for myself by saying . You God is all knowing and all powerful, so he would know what would convince me, and be able to do it.
Your God has not done so, so either it does not care or does not exist.
Or chooses to leave it up to you, rather than simply reprogramme you into a believer
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
Or not depending on which gospel writer you believe.
-
Surely if the guy was what he claimed to be everyone 2000 years ago, and since would have no doubt. As some kind of deity he should have been capable of making his deityness clear to all. Obviously Jesus couldn't do that and it was only his followers who believed, not even his own family was he able to convince!
Floo, you seem to forget that today some 2 billion people believe
So not even a simple majority and Islam is coming up fast on the inside.
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
Or not depending on which gospel writer you believe.
That's interesting. Which writers have different lengths of time? Are you saying Luke has a different length of time to the one Luke has?
-
I would answer that question for myself by saying . You God is all knowing and all powerful, so he would know what would convince me, and be able to do it.
And how would that be - my not being God?
-
It does if you are a God!
So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced? Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?
-
It does if you are a God!
So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced? Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?
Do we freely choose our beliefs? How does that work then?
-
I find it fascinating that people are so willing to be taken in by such obviously man made nonsense, bit ghoulish I know, it's a bit like but not exactly like seeing the bearded lady, it's strange we're into the 21st century and we still have people that believe this stuff.
I'd agree, ippy, and point out that, seeing as we are in the 21st century, its strange that so many people believe in stuff that they have never seen, never even experienced - just been told about it by other people who have been told about it by other people - who may have read about it in a journal, which may only give one explanation of the events that are being referred to - several times over.
-
A real deity, rather than a mythical one as featured in the Bible, would have no problem convincing me and the rest of humanity it existed.
Do you have any evidence for that claim, Floo? ;D
If it is so, how would you expect such a 'real deity' to convince you?
I would answer that question for myself by saying . You God is all knowing and all powerful, so he would know what would convince me, and be able to do it.
Your God has not done so, so either it does not care or does not exist.
Why would He want to convince you? You are free to make your own choice. That is how Jesus taught: if you don't want to know, fine, leave it. Except, of course, you can't leave it. You seem to have made your own choice, so what are you blathering on about?
Some Christians think that God wants all to know and believe in him.
Clearly he must want people that can believe on bad evidence.
Why does your God not want people that need clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?
-
Why does your God not want people that need clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?
Is there such a thing?
-
It does if you are a God!
So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced? Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?
Very simple.
Your beliefs are not chosen. Compelling evidence will force a belief on you
Why does God not give good evidence for his existence?
Why does he act like he does not exist?
-
Why does your God not want people that need clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?
Is there such a thing?
Yes.
I believe London is the capital of England.
That is not easily undone.
-
It does if you are a God!
So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced? Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?
Very simple.
Your beliefs are not chosen. Compelling evidence will force a belief on you
Why does God not give good evidence for his existence?
Why does he act like he does not exist?
What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?
-
Why does your God not want people that need clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?
Is there such a thing?
Yes.
I believe London is the capital of England.
That is not easily undone.
"London is the capital of England" isn't evidence, it is a fact. A conclusion, if you like.
-
It does if you are a God!
So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced? Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?
Very simple.
Your beliefs are not chosen. Compelling evidence will force a belief on you
Why does God not give good evidence for his existence?
Why does he act like he does not exist?
What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?
Why does god not know what will convince me?
-
It does if you are a God!
So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced? Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?
Who was it who ended centuries of philosophical pondering at a stroke by determining once and for all that we have free will, and where and when was this momentous annnouncement made?
-
It does if you are a God!
So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced? Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?
Very simple.
Your beliefs are not chosen. Compelling evidence will force a belief on you
Why does God not give good evidence for his existence?
Why does he act like he does not exist?
What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?
Why does god not know what will convince me?
Who says he doesn't?
Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?
-
Why does your God not want people that need clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?
Is there such a thing?
Yes.
I believe London is the capital of England.
That is not easily undone.
"London is the capital of England" isn't evidence, it is a fact. A conclusion, if you like.
It is a belief I have based on evidence.
If God exists that too is a fact. Where is the evidence?
-
It does if you are a God!
So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced? Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?
Very simple.
Your beliefs are not chosen. Compelling evidence will force a belief on you
Why does God not give good evidence for his existence?
Why does he act like he does not exist?
What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?
Why does god not know what will convince me?
Who says he doesn't?
Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?
So if he knows why does he not supply it?
-
Why does your God not want people that need clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?
Is there such a thing?
Yes.
I believe London is the capital of England.
That is not easily undone.
"London is the capital of England" isn't evidence, it is a fact. A conclusion, if you like.
It is a belief I have based on evidence.
If God exists that too is a fact. Where is the evidence?
Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. Is there such a thing as "clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?"?
-
It does if you are a God!
So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced? Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?
Very simple.
Your beliefs are not chosen. Compelling evidence will force a belief on you
Why does God not give good evidence for his existence?
Why does he act like he does not exist?
What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?
Why does god not know what will convince me?
Who says he doesn't?
Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?
So if he knows why does he not supply it?
Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?
-
I find it fascinating that people are so willing to be taken in by such obviously man made nonsense, bit ghoulish I know, it's a bit like but not exactly like seeing the bearded lady, it's strange we're into the 21st century and we still have people that believe this stuff.
I'd agree, ippy, and point out that, seeing as we are in the 21st century, its strange that so many people believe in stuff that they have never seen, never even experienced - just been told about it by other people who have been told about it by other people - who may have read about it in a journal, which may only give one explanation of the events that are being referred to - several times over.
I take it this another vacuous attempt of yours to portray 'science' (as in the current range of naturalistic knowledge in general) as being on a par with the theobabble, myth and superstition that we hear from some religious people, such as yourself: if so, this this is just an argument from ignorance.
-
Why does your God not want people that need clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?
Is there such a thing?
Yes.
I believe London is the capital of England.
That is not easily undone.
"London is the capital of England" isn't evidence, it is a fact. A conclusion, if you like.
It is a belief I have based on evidence.
If God exists that too is a fact. Where is the evidence?
Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. Is there such a thing as "clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?"?
Yes.
The earth orbits the sun and not the other way round.
The evidence we have for this is only readable and understandable with that single outcome.
Also the evidence for evolution from the genome clearly shows common ancestry and is not easily twisted to some other conclusion
-
I take it this another vacuous attempt of yours to portray 'science' (as in the current range of naturalistic knowledge in general) as being on a par with the theobabble, myth and superstition that we hear from some religious people, such as yourself: if so, this this is just an argument from ignorance.
Oooooh, that's his favourite.
-
Do we freely choose our beliefs? How does that work then?
We've had that discussion before and, as I've said several times before, yes we can do so. As far as I'm aware there is no innate, internal system that stops individuals choosing what they believe; there may be legal or social blocks, but these are external and man-made. The very fact that there are people here who have chosen to change their belief-systems during their lives would seem to be evidence of that freedom (or are you suggesting that they were forced to chnge them by other people?)
-
Do we freely choose our beliefs? How does that work then?
We've had that discussion before and, as I've said several times before, yes we can do so. As far as I'm aware there is no innate, internal system that stops individuals choosing what they believe; there may be legal or social blocks, but these are external and man-made. The very fact that there are people here who have chosen to change their belief-systems during their lives would seem to be evidence of that freedom (or are you suggesting that they were forced to chnge them by other people?)
Can you choose to believe something that I ask you to?
-
I take it this another vacuous attempt of yours to portray 'science' (as in the current range of naturalistic knowledge in general) as being on a par with the theobabble, myth and superstition that we hear from some religious people, such as yourself: if so, this this is just an argument from ignorance.
Oooooh, that's his favourite.
So, can either of you - with your hand on your heart - state that you were in the LHC tunnel at the time that the folk there confirmed the existence of the Higgs-Bosun? Or do you have to admit that you have only heard it reported on the news, read it in journals and other 'printed materials' and/or from people you know? Can you be absolutely certain that what was seen/experienced was the Higgs-Bosun, or is it just your belief that it is and that the theory behind the idea is solid?
-
I take it this another vacuous attempt of yours to portray 'science' (as in the current range of naturalistic knowledge in general) as being on a par with the theobabble, myth and superstition that we hear from some religious people, such as yourself: if so, this this is just an argument from ignorance.
Oooooh, that's his favourite.
So, can either of you - with your hand on your heart - state that you were in the LHC tunnel at the time that the folk there confirmed the existence of the Higgs-Bosun? Or do you have to admit that you have only heard it reported on the news, read it in journals and other 'printed materials' and/or from people you know? Can you be absolutely certain that what was seen/experienced was the Higgs-Bosun, or is it just your belief that it is and that the theory behind the idea is solid?
Boson
-
Do we freely choose our beliefs? How does that work then?
We've had that discussion before and, as I've said several times before, yes we can do so. As far as I'm aware there is no innate, internal system that stops individuals choosing what they believe; there may be legal or social blocks, but these are external and man-made. The very fact that there are people here who have chosen to change their belief-systems during their lives would seem to be evidence of that freedom (or are you suggesting that they were forced to chnge them by other people?)
That people's views change is merely evidence that they change not that they have chosen to change them. I either believe something or I don't. It isn't something that I make a choice removed from everything else.
-
Can you choose to believe something that I ask you to?
I believe that - as a human being - I can choose to believe something or not, yes; unless there are legal and societal barriers to stop me. Even then, I may well choose to believe something in private, but appear to believe something else in public.
-
Can you choose to believe something that I ask you to?
I believe that - as a human being - I can choose to believe something or not, yes; unless there are legal and societal barriers to stop me. Even then, I may well choose to believe something in private, but appear to believe something else in public.
Okay.
Believe that God does not exist.
Can you do that?
If not why not?
-
Boson
Thanks for that BR. I know how to spell it, but I always seem to see a ship/boat whenever I hear the word and consequently spell it wrongly!!
-
Believe that God does not exist.
Can you do that?
Yes, as a human being, I could do so.
If not why not?
The evidence I have been presented with over the years precludes me from making that choice.
-
For me to disbelieve in the results of the LHC experiments (the Higgs boson not definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt, by the way) I would have to believe that scientists and engineers and so forth, internationally numbering almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands altogether at least, every single one of them highly trained for years, have subverted the usual standards of the scientific method - peer review included - and concocted a worldwide conspiracy to conceal the truth or put out misinformation.
If I were that credulous I'd be believing in Jesus.
-
Believe that God does not exist.
Can you do that?
Yes, I could do so.
If not why not?
The evidence I have been presented with over the years precludes me from making that choice.
But that is the whole point!!!!!!!!!!
The evidence forces a belief. Beliefs are emergent and NOT chosen as you have just admitted.
Therefore beliefs are NOT chosen!
-
Believe that God does not exist.
Can you do that?
Yes, as a human being, I could do so.
If not why not?
The evidence I have been presented with over the years precludes me from making that choice.
You aren't making any sense here, if you are precluded from doing something then you have no choice, and you do not have free will in your belief
-
For me to disbelieve in the results of the LHC experiments (the Higgs boson not definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt, by the way) I would have to believe that scientists and engineers and so forth, internationally numbering almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands altogether at least, every single one of them highly trained for years, have subverted the usual standards of the scientific method - peer review included - and concocted a worldwide conspiracy to conceal the truth or put out misinformation.
If I were that credulous I'd be believing in Jesus.
OK, over the centuries, similar numbers of people have studied the stories about God and Jesus, more recently using scientific means such as literary criticism and linguistic principles and have come to the conclusion that 'yes, they are valid' or 'no, they aren't valid'. Some have started from a 'believing' point of view; others from a 'non-believing' one. Are you suggesting to us that only those who come to the latter conclusion are to be trusted?
Is it really true that hundres of thousands of scientists have been involved in the Higgs-Boson (yeh, I spelt it right this time!!) project? Not quite sure what engineers have to do with the issue since they only build at the instruction of the scientists, they don't (unless they are scientists as well, in which case they would count as scientists for this situation) do the experimentation.
I am also aware that 'the Higgs boson (has) not (been) definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt', by the way. However, there do seem to be those for whom the work at the LHC is sufficient for them to believe that it has been. Not very scientific, I know, but then there are scientists and 'scientists'.
-
Hope
Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?
-
For me to disbelieve in the results of the LHC experiments (the Higgs boson not definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt, by the way) I would have to believe that scientists and engineers and so forth, internationally numbering almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands altogether at least, every single one of them highly trained for years, have subverted the usual standards of the scientific method - peer review included - and concocted a worldwide conspiracy to conceal the truth or put out misinformation.
If I were that credulous I'd be believing in Jesus.
OK, over the centuries, similar numbers of people have studied the stories about God and Jesus, more recently using scientific means such as literary criticism and linguistic principles and have come to the conclusion that 'yes, they are valid' or 'no, they aren't valid'. Some have started from a 'believing' point of view; others from a 'non-believing' one. Are you suggesting to us that only those who come to the latter conclusion are to be trusted?
Is it really true that hundres of thousands of scientists have been involved in the Higgs-Boson (yeh, I spelt it right this time!!) project? Not quite sure what engineers have to do with the issue since they only build at the instruction of the scientists, they don't (unless they are scientists as well, in which case they would count as scientists for this situation) do the experimentation.
I am also aware that 'the Higgs boson (has) not (been) definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt', by the way. However, there do seem to be those for whom the work at the LHC is sufficient for them to believe that it has been. Not very scientific, I know, but then there are scientists and 'scientists'.
Scientific means are methodologically naturalustic. They cannot be used to determine supernaturalistic claims. It's only a couple of days since I last raised this with you and asked you for your supernaturalistic methodology for more than the 50th time. I presume you are just going to runaway from the issue yet again
-
OK, over the centuries, similar numbers of people have studied the stories about God and Jesus, more recently using scientific means such as literary criticism and linguistic principles and have come to the conclusion that 'yes, they are valid' or 'no, they aren't valid'.
How do these allegedly scientific (i.e. by definition methodologically naturalistic) techniques determine that the supernatural claims in the aforementioned stories are valid?
-
You aren't making any sense here, if you are precluded from doing something then you have no choice, and you do not have free will in your belief
NS, you are making even less sense. I am able, as a human being, to make a choice about one or more action/belief/etc. As a human being, there is nothing stopping me making that choice. As an educated human being I choose to make that choice based on the evidence. As can be seen, there are often occasions when the same evidence results in more than one choice (take those in Tunisia, recently, some of whom chose to stay in the country and others who chose to come home early). I fully accept that there may be legal or societal hindrances to making that choice - look at the numbers of places where changing one's political or faith position can result in one being disowned by your community, perhaps imprisoned and/or tortured - perhaps even executed - but those are man-made hindrances, not barriers that are intrinsic to being a human being.
-
Hope
Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?
I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here). However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.
-
Well chaps; I think we can conclude that after years of searching we have finally found the one person in the world apparently prepared to defend the stance that he can consciously choose what to believe.
-
Scientific means are methodologically naturalustic. They cannot be used to determine supernaturalistic claims.
Not surew why you keeping banging on about this - I haven't suggested in this thread that naturalistic methods can determine supenatural claims (not sure that I ever have). However, there are those who use naturalistic methods to study and research the documentary materials in terms of their validity as documentary evidence. When that evidence points to a particular explanation as being at least as possible as any other explanation, that is when the choice kicks in. That is all I have stated; so far, none of the explanations produced - such as the stealing of the body of Christ from the grave - have stood up to critical study. It assumes far too much on a whole range of issues, and even more so than the accepted understanding - that Jesus was God in human form and therefore could perfectly reasonably be expected to rise from the dead. OK, you could say that my faith is based on a least-bad option.
-
Least bad? Bloody hell.
-
Well chaps; I think we can conclude that after years of searching we have finally found the one person in the world apparently prepared to defend the stance that he can consciously choose what to believe.
Sorry, Shaker, I can think of thousands of such people. My experience is that it is only here that there are those who don't think that. Clearly, as this forum is but a microcosm of humanity, they must reflect the thinking of others, but then so must I.
-
Least bad? Bloody hell.
Yes, its an ugly phrase, but does seem to be the in-one nowadays.
-
Sorry, Shaker, I can think of thousands of such people.
Since I've never before seen anybody - not even theists - state openly that they think that belief is voluntaristic, you'll have to name a few.
-
"Hold the front page", is Hope getting very near to letting us have this mysterious legendary evidence of his ?
ippy
-
Hope
Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?
I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here). However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.
Do you accept that your beliefs form or emerge from your analysis of the evidence?
-
If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"
That man would have real credibility in my eyes!
-
absolutely not they could have my head first
But Islam competes with Christianity in religious popularity. So if as some contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true, you should think Islam is the business too?
-
Hope
Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?
I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here). However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.
Do you accept that your beliefs form or emerge from your analysis of the evidence?
People can ignore evidence (or arguments) though. Either the atheists or the theists seem to be doing it. Both can't be right in their conclusions.
-
If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"
That man would have real credibility in my eyes!
Why would you want people to do that?
-
absolutely not they could have my head first
But Islam competes with Christianity in religious popularity. So if as some contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true, you should think Islam is the business too?
So who are these "many people", floo? People on here? If so, please link to their post(s). I've missed seeing them.
-
I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!
-
Hope
Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?
I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here). However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.
Do you accept that your beliefs form or emerge from your analysis of the evidence?
People can ignore evidence (or arguments) though. Either the atheists or the theists seem to be doing it. Both can't be right in their conclusions.
Both cannot be right but given the statements about personal revelation from many theists, then the evidence is specifically said to be different. Also the idea of ignoring evidence or arguments seems to be the same problem about choosing beliefs. If you cannot choose beliefs then you are not able to choose to believe that you should ignore arguments to allow you to choose beliefs. This idea that either of atheists or theists are somehow en masse ignoring evidence/argument seems ludicrous and seems to argue that individual perspective is meaningless.
-
I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!
Your impression?
-
:-*
Scientific means are methodologically naturalustic. They cannot be used to determine supernaturalistic claims.
Not surew why you keeping banging on about this - I haven't suggested in this thread that naturalistic methods can determine supenatural claims (not sure that I ever have). However, there are those who use naturalistic methods to study and research the documentary materials in terms of their validity as documentary evidence. When that evidence points to a particular explanation as being at least as possible as any other explanation, that is when the choice kicks in. That is all I have stated; so far, none of the explanations produced - such as the stealing of the body of Christ from the grave - have stood up to critical study. It assumes far too much on a whole range of issues, and even more so than the accepted understanding - that Jesus was God in human form and therefore could perfectly reasonably be expected to rise from the dead. OK, you could say that my faith is based on a least-bad option.
But your position is that documents that make supernatural claims can be evaluated as to their validity using naturalistic methods. Those claims cannot be regarded as being evaluated in any sense by those methods.
I have no idea how you can slip in 'Jesus as God' as an accepted understanding in using this methods since in the terms of the methods that is a meaningless statement
-
Hope
Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?
I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here). However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.
Do you accept that your beliefs form or emerge from your analysis of the evidence?
People can ignore evidence (or arguments) though. Either the atheists or the theists seem to be doing it. Both can't be right in their conclusions.
Both cannot be right but given the statements about personal revelation from many theists, then the evidence is specifically said to be different.
I'm actually not sure who, if either, is right in this discussion as I think people may be using certain words in different ways. People do ignore evidence and arguments to varying degrees and the result is that they have, effectivelyl, chosen to not believe something. I'm not sure that is what Hope means though.[/quote]Also the idea of ignoring evidence or arguments seems to be the same problem about choosing beliefs. If you cannot choose beliefs then you are not able to choose to believe that you should ignore arguments to allow you to choose beliefs. This idea that either of atheists or theists are somehow en masse ignoring evidence/argument seems ludicrous and seems to argue that individual perspective is meaningless.[/quote]Well, there are things I have said here and people said I have argued for the opposite. Sometimes it will just be that people have misunderstood stuff I (and you and others) have put forward or have forgotten what we have said.
-
I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!
Your impression?
At least I often put imo after my posts, which is more honest than those who state stuff in the Bible is true with no evidence at all to back it up.
-
You aren't making any sense here, if you are precluded from doing something then you have no choice, and you do not have free will in your belief
NS, you are making even less sense. I am able, as a human being, to make a choice about one or more action/belief/etc. As a human being, there is nothing stopping me making that choice. As an educated human being I choose to make that choice based on the evidence. As can be seen, there are often occasions when the same evidence results in more than one choice (take those in Tunisia, recently, some of whom chose to stay in the country and others who chose to come home early). I fully accept that there may be legal or societal hindrances to making that choice - look at the numbers of places where changing one's political or faith position can result in one being disowned by your community, perhaps imprisoned and/or tortured - perhaps even executed - but those are man-made hindrances, not barriers that are intrinsic to being a human being.
You stated that the evidence precluded you from not believing. In that case there is no choice.
-
I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!
Your impression?
At least I often put imo after my posts, which is more honest than those who state stuff in the Bible is true with no evidence at all to back it up.
You forgot to put "IMO" at the end there, floo.
So how does working off your off only your impression make it valid, even if you stick "IMO" on the end?
-
If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"
That man would have real credibility in my eyes!
Why would you want people to do that?
It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.
-
If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"
That man would have real credibility in my eyes!
Why would you want people to do that?
It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.
Except you have no real reason to think that it is honesty. We are back at this idea of choosing beliefs, do you really think people do that?
-
If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"
That man would have real credibility in my eyes!
Why would you want people to do that?
It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.
Except you have no real reason to think that it is honesty. We are back at this idea of choosing beliefs, do you really think people do that?
Maybe just 'hope' then.
-
If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"
That man would have real credibility in my eyes!
Why would you want people to do that?
It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.
It would be refreshing to not have people's beliefs caricatured once in a while.
-
If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"
That man would have real credibility in my eyes!
Why would you want people to do that?
It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.
Except you have no real reason to think that it is honesty. We are back at this idea of choosing beliefs, do you really think people do that?
Maybe just 'hope' then.
People sometimes appear to argue because of the consequences but I don't think they come across as necessarily not believing, do you? In most cases even if I think they are wrong they seem to be being honest about that. This idea being touted by you about theists and Alan Burns about atheists that we chose our views and then ignore evidence seems back to front to me. It also seems to go down the route of ignoring internal experiences
-
If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"
That man would have real credibility in my eyes!
Why would you want people to do that?
It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.
It would be refreshing to not have people's beliefs caricatured once in a while.
while I would agree, there is a problem here in that you see thus as manufacturing but it seems to me how johnjil actually sees your views and of other theists. You can, as I am doing, argue that he is wrong but in assuming that it is a caricature, I.e. a deliberate distortion, falls into the same problem
-
I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!
Your impression?
At least I often put imo after my posts, which is more honest than those who state stuff in the Bible is true with no evidence at all to back it up.
You forgot to put "IMO" at the end there, floo.
So how does working off your off only your impression make it valid, even if you stick "IMO" on the end?
There is NO verifiable evidence to back up much of the stuff in the Bible, FACT, not just my opinion!
-
I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!
Your impression?
At least I often put imo after my posts, which is more honest than those who state stuff in the Bible is true with no evidence at all to back it up.
You forgot to put "IMO" at the end there, floo.
So how does working off your off only your impression make it valid, even if you stick "IMO" on the end?
There is NO verifiable evidence to back up much of the stuff in the Bible, FACT, not just my opinion!
That was not what we were discussing. We were discussing your, "So if as some contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true, you should think Islam is the business too?"
Who are these who "contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true"? That was what I asked. Who are they?
-
If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"
That man would have real credibility in my eyes!
Why would you want people to do that?
It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.
It would be refreshing to not have people's beliefs caricatured once in a while.
while I would agree, there is a problem here in that you see thus as manufacturing but it seems to me how johnjil actually sees your views and of other theists. You can, as I am doing, argue that he is wrong but in assuming that it is a caricature, I.e. a deliberate distortion, falls into the same problem
I don't think I'm wrong, NS, because I think most people who use this forum have a great deal of common sense. There are one or two exceptions but the majority wouldn't believe a report that sounded incredible to them. If it was reported that Charlie Chaplin, whose body disappeared not long after its burial, had been seen talking and eating with a crowd of fans, they would immediately say it was a con or a mistake. If someone told them Elvis had just left the building, they would laugh - as we all would. But they then say they actually believe Jesus was resurrected!
I'm sure it's really that they hope there is a god, who will save them from the thing most people dread - death and oblivion. To hang on to that hope they have to convince themselves that this was the one exception that proves the rule.
That they dismiss the incredible tales in other holy books but can't dismiss those in their own holy book just shows that they have to ditch their common sense in order to keep those hopes alive.
-
Great post, jj :)
I do find it tremendously fascinating on a psychological level as to why otherwise modern-minded people living in modern homes in 2015 with all that that entails - wireless connections and smartphones and microwaves and what have you - would, if they heard of an alleged resurrection of someone in the next nearest town or village, presumably disbelieve it and bring to bear all the critical scepticism of which they're capable, whereas the same sort of thing sketchily written about in old documents compiled by ignorant people in a long-past pre-scientific and highly superstitious time is taken as read.
Nowt so queer as folk.
-
...
I don't think I'm wrong, NS, because I think most people who use this forum have a great deal of common sense. There are one or two exceptions but the majority wouldn't believe a report that sounded incredible to them. If it was reported that Charlie Chaplin, whose body disappeared not long after its burial, had been seen talking and eating with a crowd of fans, they would immediately say it was a con or a mistake. If someone told them Elvis had just left the building, they would laugh - as we all would. But they then say they actually believe Jesus was resurrected!
But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.
Something convinced people, including skeptics like his own brother James, that he really had died and had been raised to life. That's were it is fundamentally different to your Charlie Chaplin/Elvis scenarios.
I'm sure it's really that they hope there is a god, who will save them from the thing most people dread - death and oblivion.
Why are you sure? Are you trained in psychoanalysis (or whatever the appropriate discipline would be? Do you know us well enough personally to know our motivations? I don't know you well enough to be sure of your motivations and you as sure as hell don't know me well enough to know my motivations.To hang on to that hope they have to convince themselves that this was the one exception that proves the rule.
N/a.
That they dismiss the incredible tales in other holy books but can't dismiss those in their own holy book just shows that they have to ditch their common sense in order to keep those hopes alive.
Some of us believe stuff in "other holy books" is wrong, because we have looked at them in depth at some point.
-
Great post, jj :)
Naive post.
-
Great post, jj :)
Naive post.
You would say that. It was a great post regardless.
-
Great post, jj :)
Naive post.
You would say that. It was a great post regardless.
You would say that. Your post was naive regardless.
-
You're really not very good at this debating business at all, are you? At least when Monty Python did the "No it isn't - yes it is" sketch it was meant to be comedy.
-
But Islam competes with Christianity in religious popularity. So if as some contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true, you should think Islam is the business too?
Nobody claims that
-
You're really not very good at this debating business at all, are you? At least when Monty Python did the "No it isn't - yes it is" sketch it was meant to be comedy.
You would say, that wouldn't you.
-
A perfect illustration.
-
A perfect illustration.
You would say that, wouldn't you.
The post you spoke of (jjohjil's) was badly wrong, yet you said it was a great post. Did you think about the post before you made that comment? There were some glaring problems with it, yet you just came up with "Great post".
-
Great post, jj :)
I do find it tremendously fascinating on a psychological level as to why otherwise modern-minded people living in modern homes in 2015 with all that that entails - wireless connections and smartphones and microwaves and what have you - would, if they heard of an alleged resurrection of someone in the next nearest town or village, presumably disbelieve it and bring to bear all the critical scepticism of which they're capable, whereas the same sort of thing sketchily written about in old documents compiled by ignorant people in a long-past pre-scientific and highly superstitious time is taken as read.
Nowt so queer as folk.
See #130.
-
Yes, of course I thought about it. I didn't see any problems with it - it was well put, well argued and concisely written.
-
See #130.
Why? It doesn't add anything much less rebut anything I said; it simply contains Alan Burns-like levels of bald assertion.
-
...
I don't think I'm wrong, NS, because I think most people who use this forum have a great deal of common sense. There are one or two exceptions but the majority wouldn't believe a report that sounded incredible to them. If it was reported that Charlie Chaplin, whose body disappeared not long after its burial, had been seen talking and eating with a crowd of fans, they would immediately say it was a con or a mistake. If someone told them Elvis had just left the building, they would laugh - as we all would. But they then say they actually believe Jesus was resurrected!
But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.
Something convinced people, including skeptics like his own brother James, that he really had died and had been raised to life. That's were it is fundamentally different to your Charlie Chaplin/Elvis scenarios.
I'm sure it's really that they hope there is a god, who will save them from the thing most people dread - death and oblivion.
Why are you sure? Are you trained in psychoanalysis (or whatever the appropriate discipline would be? Do you know us well enough personally to know our motivations? I don't know you well enough to be sure of your motivations and you as sure as hell don't know me well enough to know my motivations.To hang on to that hope they have to convince themselves that this was the one exception that proves the rule.
N/a.
That they dismiss the incredible tales in other holy books but can't dismiss those in their own holy book just shows that they have to ditch their common sense in order to keep those hopes alive.
Some of us believe stuff in "other holy books" is wrong, because we have looked at them in depth at some point.
Perhaps you misunderstand me, Alan, I can well understand the people of that time and age believing it all, after all they had no reason to disbelieve stuff they were told by their elders. I would have believed it myself if I had been around in those days. Now we have learnt that those sort of things just don't happen - Charlie and Elvis for instance.
You say Jesus raised people from the dead ... healed a few ... predicted his death and resurrection etc. No, what you should have said is a few people said all that happened - but a score of years later at least! Not convincing to me and I very much doubt you would believe a report in tomorrow's DM of the same thing happening in 1995 Israel!
And as for the Koran and other holy books that you claim that you have 'looked at in depth' and found them unbelievable - that proves my point!
For you to say Shaker's post was naïve, after all the fantasies you come out with all the time, is the joke of the year!
-
There is NO verifiable evidence to back up much of the stuff in the Bible, FACT, not just my opinion! in my opinion
FIFY, Floo
-
Yes, of course I thought about it. I didn't see any problems with it ...
Yes, I can see that.
-
See #130.
Why? It doesn't add anything much less rebut anything I said; it simply contains Alan Burns-like levels of bald assertion.
What is there of yours to rebut?
-
I don't think I'm wrong, NS, because I think most people who use this forum have a great deal of common sense. There are one or two exceptions but the majority wouldn't believe a report that sounded incredible to them. If it was reported that Charlie Chaplin, whose body disappeared not long after its burial, had been seen talking and eating with a crowd of fans, they would immediately say it was a con or a mistake. If someone told them Elvis had just left the building, they would laugh - as we all would.
As Shaker says, a great post, jj. A 'great' straw man argument.
As you say, most people would not believe in a story such as those you listed above, because they might be aware that Elvis was buried, twice, in 1977. Once in Forest Hill Cemetery, and then - on October 3rd - in Graceland. For both of these burials there is documentary evidence (though it is true that the documentary evidence for why the second took place is confusing). Furthermore, at no point in his mlife, did Elvis claim deity. The latter also applies to Chaplin.
However, Jesus it seems claimed to be God on a number of accasions prior to his death - either why what he said or by what he did. One can either dismiss what he said and did and state that any resurrection was therefore impossible, (in which case one can't try to argue that what he taught was something that we should take some sort of notice of, as many people do); or one has to take those claims into account when making one's choices.
[/quote]But they then say they actually believe Jesus was resurrected![/quote]As noted above, the context of this is completely different to that claimed in the straw man argument you have tried so hard to construct.
I'm sure it's really that they hope there is a god, who will save them from the thing most people dread - death and oblivion. To hang on to that hope they have to convince themselves that this was the one exception that proves the rule.
You seem to have a vcery good idesa what others believe, jj. Perhaps it matches your ideas. It certainly doesn't match my faith, or that of Christians I know.
That they dismiss the incredible tales in other holy books but can't dismiss those in their own holy book just shows that they have to ditch their common sense in order to keep those hopes alive.
Oddly enough, the 'incredible stories in other holy books' tend not to refer to the same kind of thing as the Biblical 'stories', thus making your argument rather tortuous.
-
Oh, come on, Hope! If you can't think of a decent argument, why bother!
So if I tell you I'm deity, that means I am deity, does it? There are countless people who claim they are Napoleon, does that ean they all are? This "Jesus said he was deity and Elvis didn't" is the poorest reason to believe it all that I can imagine!
And as for the 'incredible stories in other holy books' tend not to refer to the same kind of thing as the Biblical 'stories'! Incredible stories come in all shapes and sizes, Hope, but what they all have in common is they are incredible!
-
You're really not very good at this debating business at all, are you? At least when Monty Python did the "No it isn't - yes it is" sketch it was meant to be comedy.
I think you mean the £5 argument scketch.
ippy
-
You're really not very good at this debating business at all, are you? At least when Monty Python did the "No it isn't - yes it is" sketch it was meant to be comedy.
I think you mean the £5 argument scketch.
ippy
Five minutes sketch? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
-
Hope
Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?
I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here). However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.
Do you accept that your beliefs form or emerge from your analysis of the evidence?
People can ignore evidence (or arguments) though. Either the atheists or the theists seem to be doing it. Both can't be right in their conclusions.
You can give whatever weight you personally feel relevant to any evidence you are aware of.
The point is that once you have done that you have no choice over your beliefs. They emerge from you analysis of the evidence to the best of your ability.
This is clear in that you cannot really choose what to believe, and those that say they can like
Hope, soon backtrack when asked to choose to believe something
-
Great post, jj :)
I do find it tremendously fascinating on a psychological level as to why otherwise modern-minded people living in modern homes in 2015 with all that that entails - wireless connections and smartphones and microwaves and what have you - would, if they heard of an alleged resurrection of someone in the next nearest town or village, presumably disbelieve it and bring to bear all the critical scepticism of which they're capable, whereas the same sort of thing sketchily written about in old documents compiled by ignorant people in a long-past pre-scientific and highly superstitious time is taken as read.
Nowt so queer as folk.
Ah! Shaker with his psychologist hat on today. I expect he's having a rest from being a theologian, philosopher and all-round scientist for the moment. Well he has spoken, so it must be right!
-
This is clear in that you cannot really choose what to believe, and those that say they can like
Hope, soon backtrack when asked to choose to believe something
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
I know that some here like to use semantics to bamboozle others, but sometimes I think they end up bamboozling themselves more than their intended victims.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I've posted frequently that I don't think people make choices in their belief. I can argue why I think you are incorrect in those beliefs and that may have an effect on what you believe, but I certainly Didn't wake up one morning and think, hmmm I will be an atheist now. I just became one based on the impact of life, arguments and evidence. Given that Hope has stated the evidence precludes the choice of unbelief for him I don't see how his position on that is any different from mine.
I don't really understand how people think you can chose beliefs as it feels alien to my internal experience. Now I can't say that anyone can't chose but I'm asking why they think they do and how that feels to them.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I've posted frequently that I don't think people make choices in their belief. I can argue why I think you are incorrect in those beliefs and that may have an effect on what you believe, but I certainly Didn't wake up one morning and think, hmmm I will be an atheist now. I just became one based on the impact of life, arguments and evidence. Given that Hope has stated the evidence precludes the choice of unbelief for him I don't see how his position on that is any different from mine.
I don't really understand how people think you can chose beliefs as it feels alien to my internal experience. Now I can't say that anyone can't chose but I'm asking why they think they do and how that feels to them.
Doesn't it just mean that your consciousness is operating autonomously when weighing up the evidence?
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
Or not depending on which gospel writer you believe.
That's interesting. Which writers have different lengths of time? Are you saying Luke has a different length of time to the one Luke has?
You should try reading the gospels accounts and Acts without your confirmation bias active.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I've posted frequently that I don't think people make choices in their belief. I can argue why I think you are incorrect in those beliefs and that may have an effect on what you believe, but I certainly Didn't wake up one morning and think, hmmm I will be an atheist now. I just became one based on the impact of life, arguments and evidence. Given that Hope has stated the evidence precludes the choice of unbelief for him I don't see how his position on that is any different from mine.
I don't really understand how people think you can chose beliefs as it feels alien to my internal experience. Now I can't say that anyone can't chose but I'm asking why they think they do and how that feels to them.
Doesn't it just mean that your consciousness is operating autonomously when weighing up the evidence?
And I don't feel like that is what is happening? Possibly, but as I say it does not chime with my internal experience. It also does not chime with any evidence I see from neuroscience where the conscious seems to confabulate reasoning when it has none but then given both my beliefs and what it would be if they were correct, I would say that, wouldn't I?
-
Great post, jj :)
Naive post.
You wrote this
But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.
According to stories written about Jesus after the fact...
I think you need to reflect on who is making the naive posts here.
-
Great post, jj :)
Naive post.
You wrote this
But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.
According to stories written about Jesus after the fact...
I think you need to reflect on who is making the naive posts here.
Is there any possibility at all, do you thinl, that more than one person is making naive posts?
Given that that seems at least possible, I am not sure how pointing out that one person is making naive posts negates the assertion that someone else has also done so.
-
According to stories written about Jesus after the fact...
I think you need to reflect on who is making the naive posts here.
Are you suggesting that documentary evidence about other things isn't written after the fact? How naive are you.
-
Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.
Or not depending on which gospel writer you believe.
That's interesting. Which writers have different lengths of time? Are you saying Luke has a different length of time to the one Luke has?
You should try reading the gospels accounts and Acts without your confirmation bias active.
That's a bit too vague to be helpful. Would you please be more specific. My question was a subtle way of pointing out the question of how the ascension is treated in Luke's gospel and (Luke's) Acts. Is that what you were referring to.
-
Great post, jj :)
Naive post.
You wrote this
But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.
According to stories written about Jesus after the fact...
I think you need to reflect on who is making the naive posts here.
People tend to write about things after they have happened.
-
This is clear in that you cannot really choose what to believe, and those that say they can like
Hope, soon backtrack when asked to choose to believe something
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
I know that some here like to use semantics to bamboozle others, but sometimes I think they end up bamboozling themselves more than their intended victims.
No you are not getting it.
You cannot choose what you believe.
You have confirmed this already by not being able to choose to believe God does not exist due to the weight of evidence as you see it in his favour.
If you could choose to believe something what has evidence got to do with it?
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Does that mean that evidence is irrelevant?
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Does that mean that evidence is irrelevant?
On the contrary, it makes evidence of paramount importance.
My beliefs are emergent based on how I interpret the evidence.
-
;D
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Does that mean that evidence is irrelevant?
No. It means that evidence (and how you see it) is what determines belief as Hope has already written in saying the evidence precludes him not believing in God (I.e. he has no free will not to)
-
No. It means that evidence (and how you see it) is what determines belief as Hope has already written in saying the evidence precludes him not believing in God (I.e. he has no free will not to)
Wrong, NS, I can, using my freewill, investigate and test the evidence or not, making my mind up on the basis of that freewill. As such, I have freewill to choose my beliefs. By the same score, I have freewill to change my beliefs.
-
My beliefs are emergent based on how I interpret the evidence.
Precisely, you applied your freewill as to how to interpret the evidence.
-
My beliefs are emergent based on how I interpret the evidence.
Precisely, you applied your freewill as to how to interpret the evidence.
No no no.
You interpret as best you can.
During your analysis your belief form. You do not choose them, they emerge from your mulling over the evidence.
You have already said that you cannot choos to believe that God does not exist, so this shows that you are wrong.
Can you believe God does not exist?
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Don't you? I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot; but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Don't you? I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot; but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.
You cannot choose your beliefs.
Can you choose to believe your God does not exist?
If not, then you have failed and proved me right.
Do you believe in your God?
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Don't you? I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot; but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.
You cannot choose your beliefs.
Can you choose to believe your God does not exist?
If not, then you have failed and proved me right.
Do you believe in your God?
I made my own choice about my beliefs a long time ago, after much thought and soul-searching. At times, way back, I wavered, but then came back to my belief. That was my choice, not forced upon me, not inevitable.
-
The concept of choosing beliefs seems to me to create an infinite regress since in order to choose what to believe I would have to have a belief that it is the right thing to choose, and since that is a belief I would have to have chosen that which means I would have to believe it was the right thing to choose etc etc.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Don't you? I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot; but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.
You cannot choose your beliefs.
Can you choose to believe your God does not exist?
If not, then you have failed and proved me right.
Do you believe in your God?
I made my own choice about my beliefs a long time ago, after much thought and soul-searching. At times, way back, I wavered, but then came back to my belief. That was my choice, not forced upon me, not inevitable.
You have avoided the question.
Can you choose now to NOT believe in your God?
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Don't you? I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot; but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.
You cannot choose your beliefs.
Can you choose to believe your God does not exist?
If not, then you have failed and proved me right.
Do you believe in your God?
I made my own choice about my beliefs a long time ago, after much thought and soul-searching. At times, way back, I wavered, but then came back to my belief. That was my choice, not forced upon me, not inevitable.
You have avoided the question.
Can you choose now to NOT believe in your God?
If I wish, yes.. But I choose to believe. Clear now?
-
If Jesus really did resurrect why didn't he make sure everyone, including Herod and Pilate, see him?
You mean it would make a difference?
Christ came to fulfill the word of God. They like everyone else throughout history are no more important than any other person.
As Abraham said:
King James Bible
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
It is a matter of faith you can accept what God teaches or deny it.
But you cannot deny the fact it always comes to pass...
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
The Whole World does... :o ::)
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
The Whole World does... :o ::)
That is a LIE! ::)
-
If Jesus had really resurrected the whole world would have known about it!
The Whole World does... :o ::)
That is a LIE! ::)
I think the meaning was intended to convey that knowledge of Jesus and His story is planet-wide; not that, literally, everyone knows. Don't be absurd!
-
That is a LIE! ::)
Not quite, Floo. I agree that there are a few tribes that, having never been contacted by people outside their vicinity, are barely known to the rest of humanity. However, the information about Jesus' death and resurrection has, over the centuries, been spread to a very large proportion of the globe. In some cases that has since been covered up/banned/forgotten - think of the situation in the Middle East and the growth of Islam in areas that were the birthplace of the Christian church. Or do you believe that 'konwing about it' is simply a single generation issue, which is what you argument seems to be leading up to.
-
That is a LIE! ::)
Not quite, Floo. I agree that there are a few tribes that, having never been contacted by people outside their vicinity, are barely known to the rest of humanity. However, the information about Jesus' death and resurrection has, over the centuries, been spread to a very large proportion of the globe. In some cases that has since been covered up/banned/forgotten - think of the situation in the Middle East and the growth of Islam in areas that were the birthplace of the Christian church. Or do you believe that 'konwing about it' is simply a single generation issue, which is what you argument seems to be leading up to.
Of course most people have heard of JC, almost as many as have heard of Santa Claus!
-
That is a LIE! ::)
Not quite, Floo. I agree that there are a few tribes that, having never been contacted by people outside their vicinity, are barely known to the rest of humanity. However, the information about Jesus' death and resurrection has, over the centuries, been spread to a very large proportion of the globe. In some cases that has since been covered up/banned/forgotten - think of the situation in the Middle East and the growth of Islam in areas that were the birthplace of the Christian church. Or do you believe that 'konwing about it' is simply a single generation issue, which is what you argument seems to be leading up to.
Of course most people have heard of JC, almost as many as have heard of Santa Claus!
So what?
-
That is a LIE! ::)
Not quite, Floo. I agree that there are a few tribes that, having never been contacted by people outside their vicinity, are barely known to the rest of humanity. However, the information about Jesus' death and resurrection has, over the centuries, been spread to a very large proportion of the globe. In some cases that has since been covered up/banned/forgotten - think of the situation in the Middle East and the growth of Islam in areas that were the birthplace of the Christian church. Or do you believe that 'konwing about it' is simply a single generation issue, which is what you argument seems to be leading up to.
Of course most people have heard of JC, almost as many as have heard of Santa Claus!
So what?
Exactly!
-
According to stories written about Jesus after the fact...
I think you need to reflect on who is making the naive posts here.
Are you suggesting that documentary evidence about other things isn't written after the fact?
No, and you have to be equally careful with any document that "prophesies" an event, especially if the document was written after the event happened.
-
That's a bit too vague to be helpful. Would you please be more specific. My question was a subtle way of pointing out the question of how the ascension is treated in Luke's gospel and (Luke's) Acts. Is that what you were referring to.
You claim the ascension happened 40 days after the resurrection. Can you point to the place in each gospel and Acts where this is stated, please.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Don't you? I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot; but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.
You cannot choose your beliefs.
Can you choose to believe your God does not exist?
If not, then you have failed and proved me right.
Do you believe in your God?
I made my own choice about my beliefs a long time ago, after much thought and soul-searching. At times, way back, I wavered, but then came back to my belief. That was my choice, not forced upon me, not inevitable.
You have avoided the question.
Can you choose now to NOT believe in your God?
If I wish, yes.. But I choose to believe. Clear now?
NO.
Because you still believe in God.
You have to not believe it exists to pass the test
-
Of course most people have heard of JC, almost as many as have heard of Santa Claus!
I think that I'd apply Floo's 'L' word to that claim, jj. How many people in China and India have heard of Santa Claus, do you think? You'll find that there people in Europe who haven't heard of Santa Claus! We worked with Germans and Dutch whilst in Nepal who didn't know what we meant by Santa Claus, let alone Father Christmas.
-
NO.
Because you still believe in God.
You have to not believe it exists to pass the test
No, one only has to believe the possibility that God doesn't exist to pass the test, since the test - as you have worded it - is actually about a choice, not a final decision.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Don't you? I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot; but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.
You cannot choose your beliefs.
Can you choose to believe your God does not exist?
If not, then you have failed and proved me right.
Do you believe in your God?
I made my own choice about my beliefs a long time ago, after much thought and soul-searching. At times, way back, I wavered, but then came back to my belief. That was my choice, not forced upon me, not inevitable.
You have avoided the question.
Can you choose now to NOT believe in your God?
If I wish, yes.. But I choose to believe. Clear now?
NO.
Because you still believe in God.
You have to not believe it exists to pass the test
Stop talking a lot of repetitious twaddle.
-
NO.
Because you still believe in God.
You have to not believe it exists to pass the test
No, one only has to believe the possibility that God doesn't exist to pass the test, since the test - as you have worded it - is actually about a choice, not a final decision.
No that is wrong.
I accept that God could exist. I cannot choose to believe it does as I do not have compelling evidence.
If beliefs are simply chosen and do not need evidence then you can simply choose to believe whatever you want.
When faced with this simple point theists wriggle and squirm. What you have to do to pass the test is to choose to believe God does not exist.
If you cannot do that, then you fail.
As an aside, could you choose to believe you can fly and then jump from high building?
Beliefs cannot be chosen as BA and yourself ably demonstrate.
-
NO.
Because you still believe in God.
You have to not believe it exists to pass the test
No, one only has to believe the possibility that God doesn't exist to pass the test, since the test - as you have worded it - is actually about a choice, not a final decision.
No that is wrong.
I accept that God could exist. I cannot choose to believe it does as I do not have compelling evidence.
If beliefs are simply chosen and do not need evidence then you can simply choose to believe whatever you want.
When faced with this simple point theists wriggle and squirm. What you have to do to pass the test is to choose to believe God does not exist.
If you cannot do that, then you fail.
As an aside, could you choose to believe you can fly and then jump from high building?
Beliefs cannot be chosen as BA and yourself ably demonstrate.
What on earth are you on about?
-
BA
You say you can choose your beliefs, but when challenged to actually do so, you ALWAYS fail.
This show that your claim is false and also a lie.
Can you believe God does not exist. If not you fail.
-
BA
You say you can choose your beliefs, but when challenged to actually do so, you ALWAYS fail.
This show that your claim is false and also a lie.
Can you believe God does not exist. If not you fail.
Have you got some sort of weird idea that this is a court of law? I am not on trial, for anything, least of all for your silly ideas. Get back to your dvd's of Ironside, or something.
-
BA
You say you can choose your beliefs, but when challenged to actually do so, you ALWAYS fail.
This show that your claim is false and also a lie.
Can you believe God does not exist. If not you fail.
Have you got some sort of weird idea that this is a court of law? I am not on trial, for anything, least of all for your silly ideas. Get back to your dvd's of Ironside, or something.
Do you accept then that you cannot nin fact choose what you believe?
It is obvious that this is the case, but can you admit it , or can I expect insult and evasion to this question?
-
BA
You say you can choose your beliefs, but when challenged to actually do so, you ALWAYS fail.
This show that your claim is false and also a lie.
Can you believe God does not exist. If not you fail.
Have you got some sort of weird idea that this is a court of law? I am not on trial, for anything, least of all for your silly ideas. Get back to your dvd's of Ironside, or something.
Do you accept then that you cannot nin fact choose what you believe?
It is obvious that this is the case, but can you admit it , or can I expect insult and evasion to this question?
Expect what you like, chum; it matters not a jot to me. Our dog gives her bone up more easily than you give up your silly questions. :)
-
BA
You say you can choose your beliefs, but when challenged to actually do so, you ALWAYS fail.
This show that your claim is false and also a lie.
Can you believe God does not exist. If not you fail.
Have you got some sort of weird idea that this is a court of law? I am not on trial, for anything, least of all for your silly ideas. Get back to your dvd's of Ironside, or something.
Do you accept then that you cannot nin fact choose what you believe?
It is obvious that this is the case, but can you admit it , or can I expect insult and evasion to this question?
Expect what you like, chum; it matters not a jot to me. Our dog gives her bone up more easily than you give up your silly questions. :)
You made a claim.
I called you on it and all you do now is evade and insult.
Retract the claim and there is no problem.
You are likely to repeat this false claim later unless you retract it now.
-
BA
You say you can choose your beliefs, but when challenged to actually do so, you ALWAYS fail.
This show that your claim is false and also a lie.
Can you believe God does not exist. If not you fail.
Have you got some sort of weird idea that this is a court of law? I am not on trial, for anything, least of all for your silly ideas. Get back to your dvd's of Ironside, or something.
Do you accept then that you cannot nin fact choose what you believe?
It is obvious that this is the case, but can you admit it , or can I expect insult and evasion to this question?
Expect what you like, chum; it matters not a jot to me. Our dog gives her bone up more easily than you give up your silly questions. :)
You made a claim.
I called you on it and all you do now is evade and insult.
Retract the claim and there is no problem.
You are likely to repeat this false claim later unless you retract it now.
You really are odd! The only problem here is, what's wrong with you! I am not answerable to you, so go and have a shower: and stop worrying about me. :D
This has also been covered before. I have made my position clear, Your Honour. So if that does not satisfy the Court: hard cheddar! ;D
-
BA
You say you can choose your beliefs, but when challenged to actually do so, you ALWAYS fail.
This show that your claim is false and also a lie.
Can you believe God does not exist. If not you fail.
Have you got some sort of weird idea that this is a court of law? I am not on trial, for anything, least of all for your silly ideas. Get back to your dvd's of Ironside, or something.
Do you accept then that you cannot nin fact choose what you believe?
It is obvious that this is the case, but can you admit it , or can I expect insult and evasion to this question?
Expect what you like, chum; it matters not a jot to me. Our dog gives her bone up more easily than you give up your silly questions. :)
You made a claim.
I called you on it and all you do now is evade and insult.
Retract the claim and there is no problem.
You are likely to repeat this false claim later unless you retract it now.
You really are odd! The only problem here is, what's wrong with you! I am not answerable to you, so go and have a shower: and stop worrying about me. :D
More evasion.can you choose your beliefs as you stated you can.
If not accept that is was a mistake.
Otherwise I expect you will repeat this falsehood later.
-
That's a bit too vague to be helpful. Would you please be more specific. My question was a subtle way of pointing out the question of how the ascension is treated in Luke's gospel and (Luke's) Acts. Is that what you were referring to.
You claim the ascension happened 40 days after the resurrection. Can you point to the place in each gospel and Acts where this is stated, please.
As you are well aware it does not say this "in each gospel and Acts". It says it in Act 1:3 though.
Your turn.
-
BA
You say you can choose your beliefs, but when challenged to actually do so, you ALWAYS fail.
This show that your claim is false and also a lie.
Can you believe God does not exist. If not you fail.
BR, anyone can choose to believe that God doesn't exist. So what? Does that mean that they have to retain that belief for ever, or can they choose to change their belief at a later stage? After all, life is full of our changing our minds and understandings on a whole host of issues.
-
That's a bit too vague to be helpful. Would you please be more specific. My question was a subtle way of pointing out the question of how the ascension is treated in Luke's gospel and (Luke's) Acts. Is that what you were referring to.
You claim the ascension happened 40 days after the resurrection. Can you point to the place in each gospel and Acts where this is stated, please.
As you are well aware it does not say this "in each gospel and Acts". It says it in Act 1:3 though.
Your turn.
Trying to read the relevant passages without confirmation bias, answer the following:
Does Matthew even mention the Ascension? What about John?
If you read Luke in isolation (i.e. without Acts) what impression do you get of how much time passed between the resurrection and the Ascension? Be honest.
-
BR, anyone can choose to believe that God doesn't exist.
Can they really and actually, as opposed to rhetorically?
Apparently you can't.
-
BA
You say you can choose your beliefs, but when challenged to actually do so, you ALWAYS fail.
This show that your claim is false and also a lie.
Can you believe God does not exist. If not you fail.
BR, anyone can choose to believe that God doesn't exist. So what? Does that mean that they have to retain that belief for ever, or can they choose to change their belief at a later stage? After all, life is full of our changing our minds and understandings on a whole host of issues.
Can you choose to believe that God does not exist?
Try it and lets see how you get on.
I predict you will fail
-
That's a bit too vague to be helpful. Would you please be more specific. My question was a subtle way of pointing out the question of how the ascension is treated in Luke's gospel and (Luke's) Acts. Is that what you were referring to.
You claim the ascension happened 40 days after the resurrection. Can you point to the place in each gospel and Acts where this is stated, please.
As you are well aware it does not say this "in each gospel and Acts". It says it in Act 1:3 though.
Your turn.
Trying to read the relevant passages without confirmation bias, answer the following:
Does Matthew even mention the Ascension?
No, he doesn't. He last speaks of Jesus in Galilee.What about John?
Him neither, at least not in the last chapter, though he does say in 20:17 , "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'".
If you read Luke in isolation (i.e. without Acts) what impression do you get of how much time passed between the resurrection and the Ascension? Be honest.
Yes, happy to be honest. Presumably you are happy to be honest too.
The end of Luke has a significant textual variant where the original reading of Sinaiticus does not have "and was taken up into heaven." Ehrman thinks this was added later by orthodox scribes as a means of arguing against Docetists. However, the N27 committee give that phrase a B for certainty, i.e. there is "some degree of doubt". Let's look at whether it is troublesome for the orthodox view whether it is original and whether it is not original.
If it is not part of the original text, that is handy, in one sense, as it then removes any claim about Luke saying Jesus ascended to heaven on the day of his resurrection and leaves the actual timing of it to Luke's second document, the Book of Acts. That would be very convenient.
If it is part of the original text, then it leaves us with the question of whether 24:50, 51 says that Jesus did ascend to heaven on the day of his resurrection. The Greek is not as clear about as, say, the NIV English text. The NIV says, "When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven." The Greek, literally, says, "He led them out as far as Bethany and having raised his hands, he blessed them and it happened in his blessing the he parted from them and was carried into heaven". There is a δε at the start of 24:50 which is sometimes translated "and", but it is often not even translated into English.
I am not saying that 24:50, 51 cannot be read as Jesus ascending to heaven that same day, but there is some doubt about whether it does refer to the ascension at all (as Ehrman would argue) and it is not compelling that it even refers to the same day even if it does refer to the ascension.
Thus the only clear description of the actual ascension is in Acts 1.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Does that mean that evidence is irrelevant?
On the contrary, it makes evidence of paramount importance.
My beliefs are emergent based on how I interpret the evidence.
And is your interpretation of the evidence something which you do, or something which happens to you?
-
I accept that God could exist. I cannot choose to believe it does as I do not have compelling evidence.
If beliefs are simply chosen and do not need evidence then you can simply choose to believe whatever you want.
Precisely and since, following my studies/research, the evidence for God's existence outweighs that for his non-existence I choose to believe.
When faced with this simple point theists wriggle and squirm. What you have to do to pass the test is to choose to believe God does not exist.
If you cannot do that, then you fail.
Simple? As you admit yourself, it is hard to choose something that contradicts the evidence - but it is still a choice. The reason we 'wriggle and squirm' as you put it, is that we are rational and logical people who don't throw over the very evidential principles you use to make your choices but which you want us to do away with. To me, that smacks of false or corrupted argumentation. I realise that that is a common method of creating philosophical disagreement where it doesn't really exist.
As an aside, could you choose to believe you can fly and then jump from high building?
I understand that, over the years, a number of people have done just that.
Beliefs cannot be chosen as BA and yourself ably demonstrate.
Unfortunately, you have still to demonstrate in any logical or rational way that they can't. Using irrational argumentation doesn't really fit the bill.
-
In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something? If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.
A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?
I have no choice at all about my beliefs.
Does that mean that evidence is irrelevant?
On the contrary, it makes evidence of paramount importance.
My beliefs are emergent based on how I interpret the evidence.
And is your interpretation of the evidence something which you do, or something which happens to you?
I use my skills such as they are to try to the understand the facts I have.
My beliefs emerge as a result of this process and are not chosen.
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
-
Hope
Precisely and since, following my studies/research, the evidence for God's existence outweighs that for his non-existence I choose to believe.
Are you being dim.
You just said that your studies confirm to you that the evidence in gods favour is convincing.
Therefore your belief emerges and is NOT chosen.
Try this and for goodness sake get it.
Choose to believe that God goes NOT exist. This means that you choose to believe something that goes AGAINST the evidence as you see it.
If you cannot choose to believe that God does not exist then you fail and your are not telling the truth about being able to choose your beliefs.
Over to you. I predict you will fail.
-
You just said that your studies confirm to you that the evidence in gods favour is convincing.
Therefore your belief emerges and is NOT chosen.
You seem to start in the middle of the process, BR - not a very rational thing to do, surely ;) Let's imagine that I've been brought up a Hindu. As I grow up I choose to question the precepts that I've been taught - that's good child development thinking. I then choose to investigate one or more alternative belief-systems and study the evidence that there is for their validity. From that study, I may decide that the evidence for my original belief system is either more or less valid than for one of the others. You seem to arguing that all this is sub-conscious; I disagree and believe that it involves conscious processes - hence we have the opportunity to choose our belief-system.
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
I haven't taken a test, so I cannot have failed - apart from that, you are talking total tripe!
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
I haven't taken a test, so I cannot have failed - apart from that, you are talking total tripe!
You fail again!
You cannot help yourself.
Accept that you cannot choose your beliefs and the problem goes away.
Or be a liar.
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
BR
I think you're mixing 'believing something' and 'a Belief'.
You obviously can't believe anything unless your mind is convinced of it, but you can choose a Belief by weighing one set of claims against another.
If someone cannot see any way that all the complexity we see around us could not have just happened, in their mind there is no other explanation than that a much higher entity caused it all - which is called God. This is what they call believing in God. They can then choose which Faith is nearer to their ideas.
Of course, where they were brought up and by whom will have a very great influence on their ideas but I don't think they have to 'believe' in the sense you're using.
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
BR
I think you're mixing 'believing something' and 'a Belief'.
You obviously can't believe anything unless your mind is convinced of it, but you can choose a Belief by weighing one set of claims against another.
If someone cannot see any way that all the complexity we see around us could not have just happened, in their mind there is no other explanation than that a much higher entity caused it all - which is called God. This is what they call believing in God. They can then choose which Faith is nearer to their ideas.
Of course, where they were brought up and by whom will have a very great influence on their ideas but I don't think they have to 'believe' in the sense you're using.
Exactly, you weigh up options, view the evidence, and form a conclusion.
No choice is ever involved.
Try this yourself. Believe something that is not where you see the prevailing evidence points.
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
BR
I think you're mixing 'believing something' and 'a Belief'.
You obviously can't believe anything unless your mind is convinced of it, but you can choose a Belief by weighing one set of claims against another.
If someone cannot see any way that all the complexity we see around us could not have just happened, in their mind there is no other explanation than that a much higher entity caused it all - which is called God. This is what they call believing in God. They can then choose which Faith is nearer to their ideas.
Of course, where they were brought up and by whom will have a very great influence on their ideas but I don't think they have to 'believe' in the sense you're using.
Exactly, you weigh up options, view the evidence, and form a conclusion.
No choice is ever involved.
Try this yourself. Believe something that is not where you see the prevailing evidence points.
And if the evidence leaves you with more than one option, because it is not conclusive, then you choose which option seems to you to be the correct one.
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
BR
I think you're mixing 'believing something' and 'a Belief'.
You obviously can't believe anything unless your mind is convinced of it, but you can choose a Belief by weighing one set of claims against another.
If someone cannot see any way that all the complexity we see around us could not have just happened, in their mind there is no other explanation than that a much higher entity caused it all - which is called God. This is what they call believing in God. They can then choose which Faith is nearer to their ideas.
Of course, where they were brought up and by whom will have a very great influence on their ideas but I don't think they have to 'believe' in the sense you're using.
Exactly, you weigh up options, view the evidence, and form a conclusion.
No choice is ever involved.
Try this yourself. Believe something that is not where you see the prevailing evidence points.
And if the evidence leaves you with more than one option, because it is not conclusive, then you choose which option seems to you to be the correct one.
More than one option and you are not sure, and can choose to ACT in certain ways, perhaps to find out which is more likely to be correct but not believe something, as you ably demonstrate.
You like everyone cannot simply choose to believe something again the prevailing (as you see it) evidence.
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
BR
I think you're mixing 'believing something' and 'a Belief'.
You obviously can't believe anything unless your mind is convinced of it, but you can choose a Belief by weighing one set of claims against another.
If someone cannot see any way that all the complexity we see around us could not have just happened, in their mind there is no other explanation than that a much higher entity caused it all - which is called God. This is what they call believing in God. They can then choose which Faith is nearer to their ideas.
Of course, where they were brought up and by whom will have a very great influence on their ideas but I don't think they have to 'believe' in the sense you're using.
Exactly, you weigh up options, view the evidence, and form a conclusion.
No choice is ever involved.
Try this yourself. Believe something that is not where you see the prevailing evidence points.
And if the evidence leaves you with more than one option, because it is not conclusive, then you choose which option seems to you to be the correct one.
More than one option and you are not sure, and can choose to ACT in certain ways, perhaps to find out which is more likely to be correct but not believe something, as you ably demonstrate.
You like everyone cannot simply choose to believe something again the prevailing (as you see it) evidence.
I rarely agree with Bashful, but he is right in that if there is no obvious answer, you choose which one to go along with. It isn't the 'believe' in the sense you are using but we have evolved a need to 'believe' one thing against another in order to hunt and to avoid our predators,
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
BR
I think you're mixing 'believing something' and 'a Belief'.
You obviously can't believe anything unless your mind is convinced of it, but you can choose a Belief by weighing one set of claims against another.
If someone cannot see any way that all the complexity we see around us could not have just happened, in their mind there is no other explanation than that a much higher entity caused it all - which is called God. This is what they call believing in God. They can then choose which Faith is nearer to their ideas.
Of course, where they were brought up and by whom will have a very great influence on their ideas but I don't think they have to 'believe' in the sense you're using.
Exactly, you weigh up options, view the evidence, and form a conclusion.
No choice is ever involved.
Try this yourself. Believe something that is not where you see the prevailing evidence points.
And if the evidence leaves you with more than one option, because it is not conclusive, then you choose which option seems to you to be the correct one.
More than one option and you are not sure, and can choose to ACT in certain ways, perhaps to find out which is more likely to be correct but not believe something, as you ably demonstrate.
You like everyone cannot simply choose to believe something again the prevailing (as you see it) evidence.
I rarely agree with Bashful, but he is right in that if there is no obvious answer, you choose which one to go along with. It isn't the 'believe' in the sense you are using but we have evolved a need to 'believe' one thing against another in order to hunt and to avoid our predators,
Careful, jjohnjil, you will now be accused of failing the "test!"
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
BR
I think you're mixing 'believing something' and 'a Belief'.
You obviously can't believe anything unless your mind is convinced of it, but you can choose a Belief by weighing one set of claims against another.
If someone cannot see any way that all the complexity we see around us could not have just happened, in their mind there is no other explanation than that a much higher entity caused it all - which is called God. This is what they call believing in God. They can then choose which Faith is nearer to their ideas.
Of course, where they were brought up and by whom will have a very great influence on their ideas but I don't think they have to 'believe' in the sense you're using.
Exactly, you weigh up options, view the evidence, and form a conclusion.
No choice is ever involved.
Try this yourself. Believe something that is not where you see the prevailing evidence points.
And if the evidence leaves you with more than one option, because it is not conclusive, then you choose which option seems to you to be the correct one.
More than one option and you are not sure, and can choose to ACT in certain ways, perhaps to find out which is more likely to be correct but not believe something, as you ably demonstrate.
You like everyone cannot simply choose to believe something again the prevailing (as you see it) evidence.
I rarely agree with Bashful, but he is right in that if there is no obvious answer, you choose which one to go along with. It isn't the 'believe' in the sense you are using but we have evolved a need to 'believe' one thing against another in order to hunt and to avoid our predators,
If you are unsure you choose to act in one way or another. But you do not believe something until you have the evidence.
Try this for yourself.
Believe the Earth is flat.
You have ample evidence to the contrary, but if you could really choose your beliefs, you could believe the Earth was flat.
You cannot do it can you, and is the point I am making.
BA needs it to be true so he can blame people for not choosing to believe in a god. But as I point out beliefs are not chosen they derived.
-
So far everyone who says they can choose their beliefs fail the test, so they are not telling the truth.
Not sure that anyone has actually tried the test, so not sure that anyone can be said to have failed. It's rather like one of those questions that occur in exam papers occasionally; unattemptable and therefore unanswerable because of making no sense.
You have failed the test and so has BA.
Do you believe in god?
If the answer is Yes, then you have failed.
BR
I think you're mixing 'believing something' and 'a Belief'.
You obviously can't believe anything unless your mind is convinced of it, but you can choose a Belief by weighing one set of claims against another.
If someone cannot see any way that all the complexity we see around us could not have just happened, in their mind there is no other explanation than that a much higher entity caused it all - which is called God. This is what they call believing in God. They can then choose which Faith is nearer to their ideas.
Of course, where they were brought up and by whom will have a very great influence on their ideas but I don't think they have to 'believe' in the sense you're using.
Exactly, you weigh up options, view the evidence, and form a conclusion.
No choice is ever involved.
Try this yourself. Believe something that is not where you see the prevailing evidence points.
And if the evidence leaves you with more than one option, because it is not conclusive, then you choose which option seems to you to be the correct one.
More than one option and you are not sure, and can choose to ACT in certain ways, perhaps to find out which is more likely to be correct but not believe something, as you ably demonstrate.
You like everyone cannot simply choose to believe something again the prevailing (as you see it) evidence.
I rarely agree with Bashful, but he is right in that if there is no obvious answer, you choose which one to go along with. It isn't the 'believe' in the sense you are using but we have evolved a need to 'believe' one thing against another in order to hunt and to avoid our predators,
If you are unsure you choose to act in one way or another. But you do not believe something until you have the evidence.
Try this for yourself.
Believe the Earth is flat.
You have ample evidence to the contrary, but if you could really choose your beliefs, you could believe the Earth was flat.
You cannot do it can you, and is the point I am making.
BA needs it to be true so he can blame people for not choosing to believe in a god. But as I point out beliefs are not chosen they derived.
Oh, I agree that I can't believe in the earth being flat but I still think a Belief is different.
If a bird thinks there may be a cat lurking in a bush stalking it, it needs to believe it and makes that choice of flying. I think the religious are in a similar position, they think there may be the an all-powerful God who hates disbelievers and so chooses to 'believe' but not in the sense that you and I would believe anything - or the theists, in any other context.
-
Oh, I agree that I can't believe in the earth being flat but I still think a Belief is different.
If a bird thinks there may be a cat lurking in a bush stalking it, it needs to believe it and makes that choice of flying. I think the religious are in a similar position, they think there may be the an all-powerful God who hates disbelievers and so chooses to 'believe' but not in the sense that you and I would believe anything - or the theists, in any other context.
I think this is not a believe. This is uncertainty and choosing to act in a certain way to reduce danger.
As you say you cannot believe something unless you have evidence, but when faced with real life situations, you have to choose to act in some way, and you do you best with sometimes limited information.
I have done the same when lost, I did not choose to believe I was going in the correct direction, I knew I had to do something, and looked to evidence that I was right or wrong, and was prepared to change as soon as more reliable information was available.
Acting with limited information is different to believing.
-
Oh, I agree that I can't believe in the earth being flat but I still think a Belief is different.
If a bird thinks there may be a cat lurking in a bush stalking it, it needs to believe it and makes that choice of flying. I think the religious are in a similar position, they think there may be the an all-powerful God who hates disbelievers and so chooses to 'believe' but not in the sense that you and I would believe anything - or the theists, in any other context.
I think this is not a believe. This is uncertainty and choosing to act in a certain way to reduce danger.
As you say you cannot believe something unless you have evidence, but when faced with real life situations, you have to choose to act in some way, and you do you best with sometimes limited information.
I have done the same when lost, I did not choose to believe I was going in the correct direction, I knew I had to do something, and looked to evidence that I was right or wrong, and was prepared to change as soon as more reliable information was available.
Acting with limited information is different to believing.
It certainly is but I think that is what is meant by religious belief. That is why I think Belief gets mixed up with Faith. The two terms are indistinguishable in religious terms, but in logical terms they are quite different.