Why are there religious people?

[Joshua260]

No, I am merely refusing to believe an unfalsifiable, unsubstantiated claim. I don´t even hold a counter position, I don´t hold any beliefs or "faith" regarding gods.

The resurrection of Jesus is a falsifiable claim, yet no one has been able to do so. There are multiple sources, even non Christian sources, who attest that:
1. Jesus was crucified
2. the apostles sincerely believed that they had seen the risen Christ and were willing to die for that belief
3. the conversion of James the Skeptic
4. the conversion of Saul of Tarsus
5. the empty tomb.

No alternate explanation has been able to explain away this evidence.

So, do you hold to a counter-position belief concerning this falsifiable claim?

 

[quatona]

The resurrection of Jesus is a falsifiable claim, yet no one has been able to do so. There are multiple sources, even non Christian sources, who attest that:
1. Jesus was crucified
2. the apostles sincerely believed that they had seen the risen Christ and were willing to die for that belief
3. the conversion of James the Skeptic
4. the conversion of Saul of Tarsus
5. the empty tomb.

No alternate explanation has been able to explain away this evidence.

If I remember correctly, the subject of your conversation (and the claim I said was unfalsifiable) was the existence of gods. I´m not sure I understand why you changed the topic here.

 

[Joshua260]

If I remember correctly, the subject of your conversation (and the claim I said was unfalsifiable) was the existence of gods. I´m not sure I understand why you changed the topic here.

So, do you hold to a counter-position belief concerning this falsifiable claim?

 

[quatona]

So, do you hold to a counter-position belief concerning this falsifiable claim?

1. Any suggestions how it could possibly be falsified?
2. No, no counterposition. I just don´t believe it.

 

[Joshua260]

1. Any suggestions how it could possibly be falsified?

Sure.
One could provide reputable evidence that:
1. Jesus was not crucified.
2. some kind of documentation that shows that the apostles confessed that it was all a trick (maybe even before being beheaded).
3. some kind of documentation that shows that James remained a skeptic.
4. some kind of documentation that shows that Saul did not convert.
5. some kind of documentation that shows that the tomb was found not empty...in other words...if someone could have produced the body of Christ, this all would have been over long ago.

2. No, no counterposition. I just don´t believe it.

But why do you not believe it? Is it just your choice not to believe?

 

[quatona]

Sure.
One could provide reputable evidence that:
1. Jesus was not crucified.
2. some kind of documentation that shows that the apostles confessed that it was all a trick (maybe even before being beheaded).
3. some kind of documentation that shows that James remained a skeptic.
4. some kind of documentation that shows that Saul did not convert.
5. some kind of documentation that shows that the tomb was found not empty...in other words...if someone could have produced the body of Christ, this all would have been over long ago.

Please provide a practicable method of how these falsifications can be achieved.

But why do you not believe it?

What is it with you and starting with a "serious question", and upon getting a response changing the subject with every post?
Is that some kind of script you are following, or do you have problems with focussing and concentration?
Anyway, I don´t need a reason to not believe claims. I need reasons to believe them.

Is it just your choice not to believe?

Yet another change of topic? Uhm, ok:
I don´t see how it is a choice. I can´t exclude, though, that someone might come up with a definition of "choice" that renders it a choice.

Can we get back to the point now?

 

[bhsmte]

Sure.
One could provide reputable evidence that:
1. Jesus was not crucified.
2. some kind of documentation that shows that the apostles confessed that it was all a trick (maybe even before being beheaded).
3. some kind of documentation that shows that James remained a skeptic.
4. some kind of documentation that shows that Saul did not convert.
5. some kind of documentation that shows that the tomb was found not empty...in other words...if someone could have produced the body of Christ, this all would have been over long ago.

But why do you not believe it? Is it just your choice not to believe?

The only way you could falsify the resurrection now, would be to produce the remains of Jesus and verify the remains are indeed Jesus. 2000 years after the fact, good luck with that.

The main documentation for these claims are, the gospels. Since you have the positive claim that the resurrection happened, why don't you demonstrate to us, how the gospels have been verified to be historically accurate, in regards to the single topic of Jesus being resurrected.

 

[Colter]

1. Any suggestions how it could possibly be falsified?
2. No, no counterposition. I just don´t believe it.

The apostles didn't believe it either because it's not logical.

 

[TheBarrd]

Lack of faith is not the same as faith. To illustrate, consider the following question: how much faith does it take to not believe in Thor or Odin?

Since I have faith that the Christian God exists, and since He says that He is the only God, then, obviously, I have faith that Thor or Odin must not exist.

You, on the other hand, contend that no gods exist at all. How do you know this?

 

[Joshua260]

Please provide a practicable method of how these falsifications can be achieved.

Well, we have plenty of historical documentation to support the claim that Jesus resurrected. Why do you think we don't have any reputable documentation that disputes it?

What is it with you and starting with a "serious question", and upon getting a response changing the subject with every post?
Is that some kind of script you are following, or do you have problems with focussing and concentration?
Anyway, I don´t need a reason to not believe claims. I need reasons to believe them.

I did not change. You said that we did not make a claim that could be falsified and I simply proved you wrong.

Yet another change of topic? Uhm, ok:
I don´t see how it is a choice. I can´t exclude, though, that someone might come up with a definition of "choice" that renders it a choice.

Can we get back to the point now?

No change of topic here either. You're simply refusing to acknowledge that I have provided you with a falsifiable claim regarding the Christian faith. I have cited evidence to support our claim and your response should be either to believe the evidence or not to believe the evidence. You have chosen not to believe, but you refuse to explain why.

Since I have answered your questions, would you kindly respond by answering mine? Why have you chosen not to believe the evidence I cited?

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Well, we have plenty of historical documentation to support the claim that Jesus resurrected. Why do you think we don't have any reputable documentation that disputes it?


I did not change. You said that we did not make a claim that could be falsified and I simply proved you wrong.



No change of topic here either. You're simply refusing to acknowledge that I have provided you with a falsifiable claim regarding the Christian faith. I have cited evidence to support our claim and your response should be either to believe the evidence or not to believe the evidence. You have chosen not to believe, but you refuse to explain why.

Since I have answered your questions, would you kindly respond by answering mine? Why have you chosen not to believe the evidence I cited?

Since when did documentation mean anything? People rising from the dead does not exist in my reality, thus I have no belief system for it, thus I can't be a Christian by its 'jump through the hoop theological demands'.

 

[Joshua260]

The only way you could falsify the resurrection now, would be to produce the remains of Jesus and verify the remains are indeed Jesus. 2000 years after the fact, good luck with that.

No, that's not the only way. As I said to quatona, if someone could produce reputable documents that would dispute any of the five points I made, that might be something to look at. However, as I said, even several non-Christians confirm the facts I listed. That's pretty embarrassing for your side of the debate.

The main documentation for these claims are, the gospels. Since you have the positive claim that the resurrection happened, why don't you demonstrate to us, how the gospels have been verified to be historically accurate, in regards to the single topic of Jesus being resurrected.

Judging from your response, you don't sound very informed about this subject. First, the bible is several books, not just one. They were not combined until around the second century. So what we have in the new testament is several independent sources all telling the same story. Also, as I have explained before, there are several non-Christians sources that confirm the same story that the apostles tell. There are thousands of copies of the new testament and even though they may differ slightly in things like misspellings and using "he" instead of "Jesus", an experienced new testament scholar can use these many different copies to accurately determine the content of the originals. There is a society that studies this very subject and they have estimated that we can reconstruct the originals to about 98% accuracy. The 2% left over does not affect any major doctrine. So the NT you read today, is the same as it was back then. So we have many sources inside and outside the Christian faith who testify to the gospel story. The only thing left is for you to choose to believe that Jesus resurrected or to choose to believe that Jesus did not resurrect. So there's no room here for a "lack of belief". So which have you chosen to believe?

 

[Joshua260]

Since when did documentation mean anything?

we use it all the time to help establish the truth or falsity of historical events.

People rising from the dead does not exist in my reality, thus I have no belief system for it, thus I can't be a Christian by its 'jump through the hoop theological demands'.

So you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead because you haven't seen anyone else do it? Do you believe the universe began to exist? Do you believe we landed on the moon? Just because you haven't seen something happen, that in no way proves that it didn't. That's the old Hume logic that has long been refuted. There are other considerations that have to be taken into account, such as explanatory scope, and also what is the probability that we would have all the evidence we do have that Jesus resurrected (or evidence for the big bang, the Holocaust, Landing on the moon, etc), if it really didn't happen. Sorry, but this is not a successful refutation.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

The resurrection of Jesus is a falsifiable claim, yet no one has been able to do so. There are multiple sources, even non Christian sources, who attest that:
1. Jesus was crucified
2. the apostles sincerely believed that they had seen the risen Christ and were willing to die for that belief
3. the conversion of James the Skeptic (Just like my conversion to Pastafarianism is proof of FSM)
4. the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Just like my conversion to Pastafarianism is proof of FSM)
5. the empty tomb.

No alternate explanation has been able to explain away this evidence.

So, do you hold to a counter-position belief concerning this falsifiable claim?

Yea... where's the tomb? It should have a boulder near it.

You'd think the single most important event in human history would have someone actually keeping record of it.

Someone would have documented the location. Someone would have documented his ascension. 500 people and not even TEN DEAR DIARIES? But we have yet to find extra-biblical sources of this.

Mind you... we humans have the ambition. We found Pompeii. Do you know what Pompeii was buried under? Rock. Tons and tons of rock. And we found the city. We even found its citizens preserved.

We found the Dead Sea Scrolls in caves.

We've mapped out the face of this whole planet. We've mapped out the faces of other planets.

So why can't we find one tomb? One execution site? It's not like we don't have the ambition and drive to look. So why?

Doesn't seem like there's proof of this existing.

 

[HitchSlap]

The resurrection of Jesus is a falsifiable claim,

Dead people don't come back to life.

Refuted. See how easy that was?

yet no one has been able to do so.

I just did. See above.

There are multiple sources, even non Christian sources, who attest that:
1. Jesus was crucified

Name just one contemporary source.

2. the apostles sincerely believed that they had seen the risen Christ and were willing to die for that belief

Again, no contemporary sources to corroborate your claim.

3. the conversion of James the Skeptic
4. the conversion of Saul of Tarsus

No contemporary sources to corroborate your claim.

Sorry, Acts doesn't count, scholars today believe Acts is complete fabrication.

5. the empty tomb.

What empty tomb?

No alternate explanation has been able to explain away this evidence.

Sure there is, Euhemerization. Happened quite a bit in history.

So, do you hold to a counter-position belief concerning this falsifiable claim?

I hold the position that the one making a claim should demonstrate it's veracity. Otherwise, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

 

[Colter]

Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

 

[Eyes wide Open]

we use it all the time to help establish the truth or falsity of historical events.



So you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead because you haven't seen anyone else do it? Do you believe the universe began to exist? Do you believe we landed on the moon? Just because you haven't seen something happen, that in no way proves that it didn't. That's the old Hume logic that has long been refuted. There are other considerations that have to be taken into account, such as explanatory scope, and also what is the probability that we would have all the evidence we do have that Jesus resurrected (or evidence for the big bang, the Holocaust, Landing on the moon, etc), if it really didn't happen. Sorry, but this is not a successful refutation.

The universe exists in my reality, I don't need to form a belief about it origins.
Man landing on the moon has for obvious reasons its own set of evidential proofs, astronauts that flew, television cameras that filmed, eyewitnesses watching the rocket take off, technology capable of sending man to the moon. These are all reality based understandings that can lead to a belief that man landed on the moon. Your claims are somewhat flimsy by comparison, and indeed only faith forms that belief because no other rationale can. History records detail, the detailing may well be historically correct but as I said proir, that detailing is minus a few valid assessments, namely my inability to spot any rising from the dead. My refutation is sound.

If I detailed a guy today in my journal saying he had seen a flying pig and his mate bob had seen it too, the detailing may be valid and and historically correct some 2000 years later if my journal was found. But would those folk that found my journal believe that pigs can fly?


At best some sort of NDE could have come about at that time, they are pretty amazing even from a modern viewpoint, but that's not how the resurrection is relayed, nor all the various attached 'son of God' understandings that pedestal that event to gargantuan proportions. Funny the central character in the Christian faith never wrote a scrap, nor asked a single person whilst preaching his ministry to believe in any of the things most Christians demand.

 

[bhsmte]

No, that's not the only way. As I said to quatona, if someone could produce reputable documents that would dispute any of the five points I made, that might be something to look at. However, as I said, even several non-Christians confirm the facts I listed. That's pretty embarrassing for your side of the debate.

Why would anyone write documents refuting what anonymous authors wrote about decades after Jesus died? It is a fact, outside of the anonymous gospels, there is very little written about Jesus from contemporary writers.

Judging from your response, you don't sound very informed about this subject. First, the bible is several books, not just one. They were not combined until around the second century. So what we have in the new testament is several independent sources all telling the same story. Also, as I have explained before, there are several non-Christians sources that confirm the same story that the apostles tell. There are thousands of copies of the new testament and even though they may differ slightly in things like misspellings and using "he" instead of "Jesus", an experienced new testament scholar can use these many different copies to accurately determine the content of the originals. There is a society that studies this very subject and they have estimated that we can reconstruct the originals to about 98% accuracy. The 2% left over does not affect any major doctrine. So the NT you read today, is the same as it was back then. So we have many sources inside and outside the Christian faith who testify to the gospel story. The only thing left is for you to choose to believe that Jesus resurrected or to choose to believe that Jesus did not resurrect. So there's no room here for a "lack of belief". So which have you chosen to believe?

[/QUOTE]

I have studied the work of multiple scholars and historians in regards to the NT. In fact, it is one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian.

So, what are these "many" sources outside the gospels that confirm the claims in the gospels?

It is true, the actual words in the NT are likely around 98% accurate from the originals, even though the originals are lost and we only have copies starting about 200 years after Jesus died. There is a huge difference between, determine the words have been copied close to accurate in the thousands of copies and determining whether the words have historical credibility.

You see, man can write anything he desires in stories and others can copy them down, but that doesn't give them historical credibility.

There is no credible NT historian, following the historical method, that will state the resurrection can be confirmed using this method. As a general rule, NT historians will state they can confirm the following as likely happening using the historical method in regards to Jesus:

-Jesus was a real historical figure
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, their is not enough evidence outside the gospels or even in being able to confirm the gospels as credible, to go any further.

 

[bhsmte]

we use it all the time to help establish the truth or falsity of historical events.

Ancient documents aren't assumed to be true by historians, they use the historical method to critique the documentation, to determine how credible they are.

I would investigate what goes into determining credibility of ancient documents using the historical method, it will be enlightening for you.

 

[Colter]

Jesus was a threat to the Jewish preist class, that's why they tried to stop him. So naturally the Jews didn't believe he had resurrected. Christianity was a fringe cult for a long time in Jerusalem, then the armies of Titus trashed the temple and scattered the Jews once again. No one in Judaism really cared about the Jesus movement in that first half century after Jesus retuned to heaven.