Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead

[jeremyp]

Yes it is approach 2 where there is failure largely because Floo sees ignorance of the opponents views as a virtue while still expecting the luxury of winning arguments on their ground.

The point is that Christians (excepting BA) reinterpret the OT to fit their perception of what God is like.  For example, there is a story in the OT in which God kills just about everybody.  Christians don't like what this says about God so they invent other "deep" meanings which are really just excuses to avoid thinking about what the real message is.

Hope has outlined the basic misapprehension.

Hope couldn't outline a dog turd if Rover shat it on his sketch pad.

What is it with you guys that you persist in it.......IMHO actual realisation of what we try to tell you is too ghastly for you to contemplate. Such is God dodging.

The Bible says what it says.  You Christians just can't handle it.

[cyberman]

Christians don't like what this says about God so they invent other "deep" meanings which are really just excuses to avoid thinking about what the real message is.

Some Christians do that. Some Christians don't do that.

[jeremyp]

Christians don't like what this says about God so they invent other "deep" meanings which are really just excuses to avoid thinking about what the real message is.

Some Christians do that. Some Christians don't do that.

True.  Bashful Anthony denies that the OT has anything to do with his religion.

[cyberman]

Christians don't like what this says about God so they invent other "deep" meanings which are really just excuses to avoid thinking about what the real message is.

Some Christians do that. Some Christians don't do that.

True.  Bashful Anthony denies that the OT has anything to do with his religion.

that reminds me, earlier you were pretending to believe that finding a verse in the OT means you have found a statement of Christian doctrine. In response to this I asked you whether you think Christian doctrine forbids us to eat pork. You never answered. I wonder why. Perhaps facing the reality that the OT does not enunciate Christian doctrine just spoils your fun.

[Hope]

The Bible says what it says.  You Christians just can't handle it.

Ironically, jeremy, a lot of the modern understanding of parts of the Bible, say Genesis 1-11, comes from literary criticism which so many believed would be the death of the document but which has actually reinvigorated it.  As for "Hope couldn't outline a dog turd if Rover shat it on his sketch pad", I have yet to see you or anyone else come up with a rational alternative to what I have said.  I realise that you think that by making pointless comments like this you can gain some of the brownie points that ippy is so keen on, but they don't actually move the discussion on - something that perhaps you are seeking to avoid.

[Leonard James]

Since the only people who knew what they really meant when they conceived the Bible texts are dead, no amount of "modern understanding" can be taken as gospel. Likewise, arguments between contrasting "interpretations" of the book are nothing more than personal opinions.

In other words, you can put whatever meaning that appeals to you in them, and nobody can prove you wrong, which renders the book fairly useless, except for its historical and moral claims.

[Hope]

Since the only people who knew what they really meant when they conceived the Bible texts are dead, no amount of "modern understanding" can be taken as gospel. Likewise, arguments between contrasting "interpretations" of the book are nothing more than personal opinions.

In other words, you can put whatever meaning that appeals to you in them, and nobody can prove you wrong, which renders the book fairly useless, except for its historical and moral claims.

You seem to forget that the Biblical documents haven't exited in a cultural vacuum, Len.  In fact, no written material ever has.  From the day any document is written, there is commentary and explanation surrounding it (think, for instance, of the reams of material that came out within days of the recent Budget).  We still have a lot of that material for the Bible - in fact, some parts of the Bible are commentaries of earlier parts.

"Likewise, arguments between contrasting "interpretations" of the book are nothing more than personal opinions."  No more so than much scientific documentation, by the way.

[Leonard James]

Since the only people who knew what they really meant when they conceived the Bible texts are dead, no amount of "modern understanding" can be taken as gospel. Likewise, arguments between contrasting "interpretations" of the book are nothing more than personal opinions.

In other words, you can put whatever meaning that appeals to you in them, and nobody can prove you wrong, which renders the book fairly useless, except for its historical and moral claims.

You seem to forget that the Biblical documents haven't exited in a cultural vacuum, Len.  In fact, no written material ever has.  From the day any document is written, there is commentary and explanation surrounding it (think, for instance, of the reams of material that came out within days of the recent Budget).  We still have a lot of that material for the Bible - in fact, some parts of the Bible are commentaries of earlier parts.

"Likewise, arguments between contrasting "interpretations" of the book are nothing more than personal opinions."  No more so than much scientific documentation, by the way.

Indeed. but the Bible has always appealed strongly to the human desire not to accept that his life is all there is, and that there is a better life to come.

I would go so far as to say that we non-believers are unlucky not to have been taken in by it, for obvious reasons. But personally I prefer to face facts, however grim. 

[floo]

Hope you have been asked to supply verifiable evidence to back up your claims and have failed to do so!

Floo, I and the other Christians here have been asked to supply verifiable evidence and we have done so.  OK, I accept that your definition of 'verifiable' doesn't match that of myself and others, but then - as I said to Shaker on a different thread - we are dealing with life from very different perspectives.  I do not believe that scientific verification 9of great value though it is)  is the be-all and end-all of life; you do.

On the other hand, you haven't even attempted to provide any evidence for your beliefs - whichever understanding of verifiable evidence' you happen to choose - despite being asked to provide it on numerous occasions.  All you have done is make unsupported statements (some of which illustrate how limited your understanding of, for instance the Bible, is).  As I hope you will accept, you have done this on this and other forums like this that we have shared membership of.

You have NEVER supplied any VERIFIABLE evidence, that is a LIE! All you have done is supply assertions that convince you, but don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny!

[Hope]

You have NEVER supplied any VERIFIABLE evidence, that is a LIE! All you have done is supply assertions that convince you, but don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny!

Have you provided any evidence for your belief system to even be put under scrutiny?

[BeRational]

You have NEVER supplied any VERIFIABLE evidence, that is a LIE! All you have done is supply assertions that convince you, but don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny!

Have you provided any evidence for your belief system to even be put under scrutiny?

You conveniently forget that to NOT believe something is the default position.

If you claim that Jesus rose from the dead, then it is for YOU to provide the evidence. The alternative view that it did not happen the the default position.
Because you never provide sufficient evidence (anecdotal evidence for a miracle is never sufficient) then the default position remains intact, and it is ONLY sensible to conclude that he did not rise from the dead.

[Leonard James]

... it is ONLY sensible to conclude that he did not rise from the dead.

Or that he was not actually as dead as they thought he was. 

[Hope]

You conveniently forget that to NOT believe something is the default position.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?  Your default position may be to NOT believe something, but was it always so?  Is it the default position for everyone?

If you claim that Jesus rose from the dead, then it is for YOU to provide the evidence. The alternative view that it did not happen the the default position.
Because you never provide sufficient evidence (anecdotal evidence for a miracle is never sufficient) then the default position remains intact, and it is ONLY sensible to conclude that he did not rise from the dead.

Well, there is documentary evidence - but of course you and others here regard that as flawed because it supports an understanding of the universe that you don't agree with. 

[Shaker]

"An understanding of the universe"? You jest.

[Gordon]

Well, there is documentary evidence are anecdotal claims - but of course you and others here regard that as flawed because it supports an understanding of the universe that you don't agree with.

FIFY

[BeRational]

You conveniently forget that to NOT believe something is the default position.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?  Your default position may be to NOT believe something, but was it always so?  Is it the default position for everyone?

If you claim that Jesus rose from the dead, then it is for YOU to provide the evidence. The alternative view that it did not happen the the default position.
Because you never provide sufficient evidence (anecdotal evidence for a miracle is never sufficient) then the default position remains intact, and it is ONLY sensible to conclude that he did not rise from the dead.

Well, there is documentary evidence - but of course you and others here regard that as flawed because it supports an understanding of the universe that you don't agree with.

Your default position may be to NOT believe something, but was it always so?  Is it the default position for everyone?

This is the default position for ALL people that use reason and logic. This is just the rule.

Well, there is documentary evidence

Anecdotal evidence is never enough for miracle claims.

I suspect you will dismiss all the anecdotal claims the miracles performed by sai baba, and I also suspect you do not take seriously all the documented cases of alien abduction.

[Hope]

This is the default position for ALL people that use reason and logic. This is just the rule.

According to you.

Well, there is documentary evidence

Anecdotal evidence is never enough for miracle claims.

So, documentary evidence is necessarily anecdotal, is it?

I suspect you will dismiss all the anecdotal claims the miracles performed by sai baba, ..

Well, as I know of and have spoken with a person (Tal Brooke) who was there at the time of many of the claims, who has stated that they didn't actually happen - yes I do dismiss those claims. 

... and I also suspect you do not take seriously all the documented cases of alien abduction.

I am undecided as regards these, as I have never been shown any of the so-called first-person evidence, combined with the fact that there is no evidence for or against the existence of such beings.

[BeRational]

Hope

According to you.

No, not me these are the rules.

Well, as I know of and have spoken with a person (Tal Brooke) who was there at the time of many of the claims, who has stated that they didn't actually happen - yes I do dismiss those claims. 

I doubt he was there at the majority of the events claimed.
Why do you not dismiss his account, is he biased, is he a Christian?

I am undecided as regards these, as I have never been shown any of the so-called first-person evidence, combined with the fact that there is no evidence for or against the existence of such beings.

There are lots of account of these on the net.
When you say there is no evidence for or against these beings, well there is no evidence for a god either.

You simply employ confirmation bias to support your indoctrinated belief.
Your beliefs are not founded or supported by sufficient evidence to come to the conclusions you have.

http://ufos.about.com/od/aliensalienabduction/a/bestabductions.htm

[floo]

Hope keeps asking non believers to give evidence, whilst not giving any himself to support his position. 

[Hope]

Hope keeps asking non believers to give evidence, whilst not giving any himself to support his position.

Floo never gives evidence; Hope and others provide evidence that some here do not regard as evidence because of the limited view of the universe that they hold.

[floo]

Hope keeps asking non believers to give evidence, whilst not giving any himself to support his position.

Floo never gives evidence; Hope and others provide evidence that some here do not regard as evidence because of the limited view of the universe that they hold.

WHAT A COP OUT!

[Hope]

I doubt he was there at the majority of the events claimed.
Why do you not dismiss his account, is he biased, is he a Christian?

When he wrote an article about the non-occurrence of the claims he had only just left the Sai Baba cult and was neither a Sai Baba-ist or a Christian.  He has become a Christian since then, so the suggestion of bias doesn't float.

There are lots of account of these on the net.

When I say first-hand, I mean face to face (sorry for that confusion).  After all, the internet is even more easily falsified/amended than written documents.

When you say there is no evidence for or against these beings, well there is no evidence for a god either.

I'd disagree, BR.  There is plenty of evidence for God.  I appreciate that it doesn't match your rtather limited understanding of 'evidence'.

Imo, you simply employ confirmation bias to support your indoctrinated belief.
Your beliefs are not founded or supported by sufficient evidence to come to the conclusions you have.

FIFY

[Shaker]

Hope keeps asking non believers to give evidence, whilst not giving any himself to support his position.

Floo never gives evidence; Hope and others provide evidence that some here do not regard as evidence because of the limited view of the universe that they hold.

WHAT A COP OUT!

It was never going to be otherwise, though.

[BeRational]

Hope keeps asking non believers to give evidence, whilst not giving any himself to support his position.

Floo never gives evidence; Hope and others provide evidence that some here do not regard as evidence because of the limited view of the universe that they hold.

It's not a limited view, it's a logical rational view.

The sort of evidence you have for your belief, you instantly dismiss for others, for very good reasons. It's not sufficient evidence.
What's really happening here is that you believe proposition X. You then look for anything to confirm proposition X regardless of whether that evidence is compelling, or whether competing evidence of equal quality supports proposition Y.
Hence, you do not accept the miracles of sai baba, nor alien abbuctions, nor any other religions, but you do accept the claims of Christianity.

I and others on here, treat all evidence equally and with no favour, and dismiss you claims just as you do the claims of other religions etc.

[BeRational]

I doubt he was there at the majority of the events claimed.
Why do you not dismiss his account, is he biased, is he a Christian?

When he wrote an article about the non-occurrence of the claims he had only just left the Sai Baba cult and was neither a Sai Baba-ist or a Christian.  He has become a Christian since then, so the suggestion of bias doesn't float.

There are lots of account of these on the net.

When I say first-hand, I mean face to face (sorry for that confusion).  After all, the internet is even more easily falsified/amended than written documents.

When you say there is no evidence for or against these beings, well there is no evidence for a god either.

I'd disagree, BR.  There is plenty of evidence for God.  I appreciate that it doesn't match your rtather limited understanding of 'evidence'.

Imo, you simply employ confirmation bias to support your indoctrinated belief.
Your beliefs are not founded or supported by sufficient evidence to come to the conclusions you have.

FIFY

No you did not fix it, you made it wrong.

It was correct in the first place, unless of course you can provide compelling evidence.