Spirituality
25 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyC'mon. Romans has been claiming that there is " 'overwhelming' evidence of the Resurrection of Christ". On page 2 of this thread the "evidence" he presented is a cut-and-paste of a few attorneys who purportedly claim to believe the evidence they found. Romans' "evidence" is BASED on the "fallacy of virtue". For you to invoke "fallacy of virtue" in response to someone who isn't swayed by the "virtue" of one of the attorneys is laughable.
Fallacy of virtue. A claim is not untrue simply because you find the source questionable.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
31 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou think the world would be as one? That’s laughable. Actually, it’s tragic; the reasoning behind it is laughable.
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one.
John Lennon
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
31 May 18
Originally posted by @stellspalfieHe’s not the only one...
Defence lawyers are hardly the most trustworthy people around when it comes to objective truth.
“Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."1 Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists.
Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.
Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.
Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...”
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-case-for-christ.htm
And there are many more...
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
31 May 18
Originally posted by @stellspalfieHow about an atheist who decides to research evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to write a book refuting it and winds up convinced by the evidence and becomes a believer?
In this situation, although not much better than the lawyer, it would be the jury who should be trusted to be more objective.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
31 May 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThat’s not the evidence. Those are examples of prominent people and experts in reviewing evidence who were convinced by it.
C'mon. Romans has been claiming that there is " 'overwhelming' evidence of the Resurrection of Christ". On page 2 of this thread the "evidence" he presented is a cut-and-paste of a few attorneys who purportedly claim to believe the evidence they found. Romans' "evidence" is BASED on the "fallacy of virtue". For you to invoke "fallacy of virtue" in response to someone who isn't swayed by the "virtue" of one of the attorneys is laughable.
I’ve previously provided a link where one can get a 30,000-foot view of *some* of the evidence. In fact, I’ve provided that link several times.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by @thinkofoneIn full agreement. Never has 'overwhelming' been more erroneously deployed.
C'mon. Romans has been claiming that there is " 'overwhelming' evidence of the Resurrection of Christ". On page 2 of this thread the "evidence" he presented is a cut-and-paste of a few attorneys who purportedly claim to believe the evidence they found. Romans' "evidence" is BASED on the "fallacy of virtue". For you to invoke "fallacy of virtue" in response to someone who isn't swayed by the "virtue" of one of the attorneys is laughable.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
31 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou’re apparently not aware of the evidence and have no interest in knowing it.
In full agreement. Never has 'overwhelming' been more erroneously deployed.
Shockah!
Originally posted by @romans1009C'mon. After your claim of having "overwhelming evidence", GoaD asked you to "overwhelm" him. That was the response YOU chose. Evidently you're now inexplicably claiming that it wasn't meant to be "evidence" at all even though that's what you said you had and that's what GoaD asked for. Can anyone blame him for feeling UNDERwhelmed?
That’s not the evidence. Those are examples of prominent people and experts in reviewing evidence who were convinced by it.
I’ve previously provided a link where one can get a 30,000-foot view of *some* of the evidence. In fact, I’ve provided that link several times.
If you actually have "overwhelming" evidence, then simply put together the three or four pieces of evidence that you've found most convincing and explain the reason that you found each piece convincing.
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-case-for-christ.htm
I read the linked page. There wasn't any evidence there. Just the claim that someone got converted after considering some evidence or other.
Suppose someone claimed he had been abducted by aliens and subjected to a medical examination on a spaceship. Would you believe that, on someone's say-so? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd want to see a tool or an instrument purloined from the spacecraft which could not have been of Earthly origin before I believed something like that.
Now you want me to believe that the Transcendent appeared in the body of a Jewish man 2,000 years ago, and the body isn't here anymore to be examined. Well, then you'd better come up with something better than somebody's say-so that that really happened, because it's weirder than being abducted by aliens.
31 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @moonbusCan't imagine there being anything more convincing than this:
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-case-for-christ.htm
I read the linked page. There wasn't any evidence there. Just the claim that someone got converted after considering some evidence or other.
Suppose someone claimed he had been abducted by aliens and subjected to a medical examination on a spaceship. Would you believe that, on someone's say-s ...[text shortened]... somebody's say-so that that really happened, because it's weirder than being abducted by aliens.
If Jeffrey Hunter doesn't convince you, then surely the Miklos Rozsa soundtrack will.
Note the imagery of Christ's shadow with the fishing nets. That's gotta tip the scale for most.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
31 May 18
Originally posted by @moonbusWell said.
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-case-for-christ.htm
I read the linked page. There wasn't any evidence there. Just the claim that someone got converted after considering some evidence or other.
Suppose someone claimed he had been abducted by aliens and subjected to a medical examination on a spaceship. Would you believe that, on someone's say-s ...[text shortened]... somebody's say-so that that really happened, because it's weirder than being abducted by aliens.
When someone claims to have overwhelming evidence for something it's rather disappointing to discover they have diddly squat.
31 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhy do Christians insist that they have hard evidence of the existence of God or Christ I really cannot understand. I think its more they trying to convince themselves because they themselves are not sure. There is no requirement for Christians to try to convince anyone that there is a God. I think that is Gods job and God will draw people to him if and when he wants. So thats a conversation that has no purpose and no conclusion.
Well said.
When someone claims to have overwhelming evidence for something it's rather disappointing to discover they have diddly squat.
In any event here is what Jesus said about those who go out on the Great Commission which Christians boast that they are about :
And these signs shall follow them that believe;
In my name shall they cast out devils;
they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents;
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;
they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
(Mark 16:17-18 KJV)
Personally I have not come across any Christian that does that. I have come across many shysters and deceivers though.
Originally posted by @rajk999I don't see why any atheist has to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof is entirely on those who make the claim that God does exist and that Jesus was Him incarnate, just as the burden of proof is on those who claim to have been abducted by aliens to prove that aliens exist. If Christians are willing to accept on faith that God exists, without proof, that's no skin off my nose, but it also does not show that the atheist position has failed or neglected to prove anything. If theists can believe without proof, then so too can non-theists; sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. But if Christians offer a putative proof of something so unlikely as that the Transcendent appeared in the body of a Jew about 2,000 years ago, expect a response no less robust than if someone were to claim he had been abducted by aliens.
Why do Christians insist that they have hard evidence of the existence of God or Christ I really cannot understand. I think its more they trying to convince themselves because they themselves are not sure. There is no requirement for Christians to try to convince anyone that there is a God. I think that is Gods job and God will draw people to him if and wh ...[text shortened]... come across any Christian that does that. I have come across many shysters and deceivers though.
I have come across some strange Christians. My sister is (or was) a Pentecostalist; they do speak in tongues. And I am told that there are snake handlers in some parts of the USA who believe that those strong in the faith will not be bitten, or die if bitten. It's no skin off my nose if they believe such things and do such things, but that's no evidence that God exists or that Jesus was God in the flesh. It's just evidence that some people are weird.
31 May 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneLol. Yeah, Jefferey Hunter. Fine actor. Played next to John Wayne in 'The Searchers.' Played Captain Pike in the original Star Trek pilot, too, but very cold compared to Bill Shatner's 'Kirk.'
Can't imagine there being anything more convincing than this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtytzqzOvnY
If Jeffrey Hunter doesn't convince you, then surely the Miklos Rozsa soundtrack will.
Note the imagery of Christ's shadow with the fishing nets. That's gotta tip the scale for most.
Originally posted by @moonbusIndeed. However, the accepted, common usage and definition of atheism has transitioned over the past couple of decades. Those of us old enough to remember are thus somewhat perplexed.
I don't see why any atheist has to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof is entirely on those who make the claim that God does exist ...
Atheism used to encompass a positive claim: "There are no gods." By my observation, atheists got tired of having to defend the claim. So over time it got watered down to "I lack belief in the existence of gods." So now it essentially boils down to an opinion without a claim.
Meanwhile, it is still common for atheists in these discussions not to make the distinction "I simply lack belief" but instead to say explicitly in a host of different ways, that God does not exist, or "it's just a story," etc.
If atheists simply lack belief and that's it, then they have no license whatsoever to make any positive claim in this regard. But that's not reality. Just about the only time we hear an atheist fall back to "I lack belief" is when cornered to provide proof of a claim.
This "I simply lack belief" escape hatch didn't exist years ago. That stance was aptly listed under the "agnostic" column.