"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[juvenissun]

Don't worry, we're not off topic. We are doing a great job of demonstrating how belief is based on far more than evidence if it is based on evidence at all, and what blind faith is.

Please outline what the criteria used to define life is, and how a rock fits the majority of them (usually it would have to fit all of them).

Sorry, I do not give essay as a reply here. I can answer question based on a common understanding.
In this issue, for example, I can say that a rock does breath, and it can breath in air, in water and underground.

 

[juvenissun]

Change your mind?

No. Your question is wrong.

 

[JGG]

No. I heard them myself. So obviously personal testimony can never be true, eh? Not unless you witness it yourself, right?

For all purposes it is safe to assume that no atheist has ever made such a statement ever. Can you refute that? You've said no.

The courts also look for corroborating testimony. And we have ample corroborating testimony from other documents that made it into the NT, the writings of Jews, the Koran, and even from secular Roman historians and (other less well-known Romans).

The New Testament: It is reasonable to assume that earlier documents could have influenced later documents, that the narrative that was passed down could have been fabricated by even a single person, and that documents that were not included in the NT were the ones that did not corroborate the narrative. The Jews certainly don't acknowledge any support lent to Christianity, the Koran was absolutely influenced by the New Testament, not a corroboration of it. Roman historians generally acknowledge Christians and their beliefs, but not the substance or accuracy of the Christ narrative.

We have multi-attestation from all of these types of sources that support the following:

1. Jesus was crucified.
2. The apostles were adamant that they had seen the risen Jesus, even on threat of death.
3. The (highly unlikely) conversion of Paul.
4. The conversion of James the skeptic.
5. That the tomb was empty.

I disagree, but let's say that it is true. What is that evidence of?

Also, you have the embarrassing lack of reputable historical documents that contradict these lines of evidence.

What needs to be refuted? Let's assume that Jesus existed, James and Paul both believed he was God, that they believed they saw a risen Jesus, and the tomb was empty.

What is that reasonable evidence of? Tell me about doubting Thomas.

Also, there is the archeological evidences that have proved such things as the existence of Nazareth, Pontius Pilot, the census that was taken when Jesus was born, etc....All of these were previously thought to be fabrications. (Lots more from the OT also) Also, the fact that women are said to have discovered the empty tomb...the story would have been more believable (if it was just made up) to men find the tomb empty first. Also, the story fits right in with the historical climate of the times. etc. etc. etc. Good grief...books have been written on this stuff. So there's lots of evidence to consider.

Yes. But that's poor evidence. Nazareth, Pontius Pilot, and a Census are evidence of the existence of Jesus like New York, Ronald Reagan, and the Vietnam War are evidence of Captain America. It is easy to write fiction using real places, real people, real events, and real historical climates. In fact, the majority of fiction is created that way.

Let me subtly point one thing out. When Jesus walked on water to the apostles, why was such a miracle necessary? Wasn't it just egoism? Showing off? What was the point?

 

[bhsmte]

No. Your question is wrong.

Didn't you say in this thread, worms and jelly fish were not alive?

 

[JGG]

Sorry, I do not give essay as a reply here.

No essay is required. Just a list. Probably only 2 or 3 items would suffice.

I can answer question based on a common understanding.
In this issue, for example, I can say that a rock does breath, and it can breath in air, in water and underground.

A rock breathes? With lungs or gills?

 

[juvenissun]

Didn't you say in this thread, worms and jelly fish were not alive?

According to a particular definition, no, they are not.

 

[juvenissun]

No essay is required. Just a list. Probably only 2 or 3 items would suffice.



A rock breathes? With lungs?

No. With skin.

 

[JGG]

No. With skin.

Do rocks have skin? Why does a rock need to breathe?

 

[juvenissun]

Do rocks have skin? Why does a rock need to breathe?

The surface. Through breathing, the surface becomes more mature.
It does not need, it does. The "need" is not in the definition.

 

[JGG]

The surface. Through breathing, the surface becomes more mature.
It does not need, it does. The "need" is not in the definition.

You recognize the difference between breathing (respiration) and the wind blowing on something, yes?

 

[bhsmte]

According to a particular definition, no, they are not.

Explain please.

 

[juvenissun]

You recognize the difference between breathing (respiration) and the wind blowing on something, yes?

Of course. Rock can breath in the ground, where there is no wind.

 

[JGG]

Of course. Rock can breath in the ground, where there is no wind.

So in conclusion: Rocks breathe through their skin, even underground. How do rocks "mature"?

Did you realize that the definition of breathe is to take air into the lungs (except for the wind in a literary context).

That being said, do rocks in space breathe? If so, what do they breathe?

 

[Joshua260]

For all purposes it is safe to assume that no atheist has ever made such a statement ever. Can you refute that? You've said no.



The New Testament: It is reasonable to assume that earlier documents could have influenced later documents, that the narrative that was passed down could have been fabricated by even a single person, and that documents that were not included in the NT were the ones that did not corroborate the narrative. The Jews certainly don't acknowledge any support lent to Christianity, the Koran was absolutely influenced by the New Testament, not a corroboration of it. Roman historians generally acknowledge Christians and their beliefs, but not the substance or accuracy of the Christ narrative.



I disagree, but let's say that it is true. What is that evidence of?



What needs to be refuted? Let's assume that Jesus existed, James and Paul both believed he was God, that they believed they saw a risen Jesus, and the tomb was empty.

What is that reasonable evidence of? Tell me about doubting Thomas.



Yes. But that's poor evidence. Nazareth, Pontius Pilot, and a Census are evidence of the existence of Jesus like New York, Ronald Reagan, and the Vietnam War are evidence of Captain America. It is easy to write fiction using real places, real people, real events, and real historical climates. In fact, the majority of fiction is created that way.

Let me subtly point one thing out. When Jesus walked on water to the apostles, why was such a miracle necessary? Wasn't it just egoism? Showing off? What was the point?

You are posting off-topic and I'm no longer entertaining posts on the Resurrection evidence. The OP was about whether it is contradictory for an atheist to claim that Christians have a blind faith (meaning that they have zero evidence) and to also claim that people come to believe only through persuasive evidence. The fact at you are so adamant that an atheists havs never made this contradiction answers my question satisfactorily. Apparently, you know it is contradictory as well. So thank you for your response.

 

[juvenissun]

So in conclusion: Rocks breathe through their skin, even underground. How do rocks "mature"?

Did you realize that the definition of breathe is to take air into the lungs (except for the wind in a literary context).

That being said, do rocks in space breathe? If so, what do they breathe?

Yes, every rock has a maturing process and stages.
No. Breathing does not need a lung, even a rock does have space inside the rock where gas can be stored. For life lives in the air, in and out of air, by whatever mechanism, would satisfy the criterion.
No. a rock does not breath in vacuum. It may breath one way (out). But that does not fit.

Are you a scientist? If not, we may stop. All these talks could be very strange to you.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, every rock has a maturing process and stages.
No. Breathing does not need a lung, even a rock does have space inside the rock where gas can be stored. For life lives in the air, in and out of air, by whatever mechanism, would satisfy the criterion.
No. a rock does not breath in vacuum. It may breath one way (out). But that does not fit.

Are you a scientist? If not, we may stop. All these talks could be very strange to you.

What regulates breathing in a rock?

 

[Joshua260]

Outside of the gospels, there is very little written about Jesus and especially so by contemporary sources. Contemporary historians, write much more about other figures, than the miniscule amount they write about Jesus.

I won't take this off track anymore though, we just strongly disagree on this one.

That is a ridiculous point...that just because historians wrote more about other people than Jesus, then the story is obviously false. Frankly, given that he had such a short ministry, and lived in the outreaches of the Roman empire, it's really quite remarkable that they wrote about him at all.

But after all this, are you still going to ignore the actual subject of the OP?

 

[JGG]

You are posting off-topic and I'm no longer entertaining posts on the Resurrection evidence. The OP was about whether it is contradictory for an atheist to claim that Christians have a blind faith (meaning that they have zero evidence) and to also claim that people come to believe only through persuasive evidence. The fact at you are so adamant that an atheists havs never made this contradiction answers my question satisfactorily. Apparently, you know it is contradictory as well. So thank you for your response.

Actually, if you recall, I stated that no atheist has ever claimed that blind faith is faith simply with lack of evidence (although a Christian did just claim that, maybe that's why you're so confused) and likewise has claimed that belief is only ever based on evidence. No atheist has ever told you that.

If you further recall, I was the one who pointed out that belief is based on influence, not evidence.

You were the one who went on about the evidence of the resurrection, so I replied in turn.

 

[JGG]

Yes, every rock has a maturing process and stages.

What is this maturing process and stages?

No. Breathing does not need a lung, even a rock does have space inside the rock where gas can be stored.

The standard definition of breathing means to take air in and out of lungs. What is your definition of breathing?

For life lives in the air, in and out of air, by whatever mechanism, would satisfy the criterion.

Life is only in air?

No. a rock does not breath in vacuum. It may breath one way (out). But that does not fit.

How does it breathe out?

Are you a scientist? If not, we may stop. All these talks could be very strange to you.

I'm a researcher, and yes they are strange as your definitions defy the standard, recognized, scientific ones. Are you a scientist?

 

[bhsmte]

That is a ridiculous point...that just because historians wrote more about other people than Jesus, then the story is obviously false. Frankly, given that he had such a short ministry, and lived in the outreaches of the Roman empire, it's really quite remarkable that they wrote about him at all.

But after all this, are you still going to ignore the actual subject of the OP?

Like I said, we disagree on this one. Move on.