Teaser question...

[InterestedAtheist]

The sanctity of human life. That's why. We are made in God's image. And if we are In Christ, we are His workmanship. So it follows that we sould take utmost care for those who can't defend themselves - especially other believers.

Interesting. Thank you for your reply. Perhaps we can pursue it at some later date.
Have a nice day!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Do you realized all you have done is say, "Oh, you think martyrdom shows they didn't die for a lie, huh? Well, guess what? You can't prove it!" which I take issue with because you are not actually critically thinking about what evidence would convince you personally outside of what we already have. You have to remember that even if you don't get your EXACT criteria met that, objectively, what I have talked about should at least give you some pause if you are acting in good faith. So while it is probably not stated explicitly whether or not the Apostles had the chance to recant or not, this doesn't actually mean you can't call them a martyr. In 2016, there was a priest who was giving communion when some terrorists came up to him during the service and slit his throat. Both the secular people and the Christian audience and the people from the faith that the terrorists come from all said he was a martyr. So while this person didn't actually have time to recant, he was still called a martyr from multiple parties involved. Plus, IDK what gives you the idea that the texts from the second century or before would even use the kind of language you are requiring. They might be saying the same thing, just putting it in different terms. If that's the case, then you don't believe Christianity based on a technicality rather than whether or not it actually meets your "requirements".

@Nihilist Virus, I found this:
Do the Apostles of Jesus Qualify as Martyrs? | Sean McDowell

Now, the question, of course, still stands that you just so happen, by my estimation, not by coincidence, to find a loophole to believing in the Christian faith. So I'd like to ask you now how you came up with the acceptable evidence you have for whether or not you would believe Christianity is True.

I never said they're not a martyr. James and Stephen definitely are martyrs. I don't understand what you're going on about.

Death is sad and tragic, but that doesn't mean it proves literally anything you want it to prove.

I know you think you've come close to the bar here, but let me explain why I'm being strict. It's because the conclusion you're driving toward is that a man rose from the dead. I can't just let you hand wave and fudge details to let that one slide through.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, then I would ask what things we can actually know (as in knowledge and not belief) outside of our own existence. To me this is a no-brainier that the answer is pretty much nothing.

It doesn't matter what you personally accept as a philosophical position. Some people are sure of things and claim knowledge of them, that's all that matters.

Here's an example. I am a moral subjectivist, but you believe that morality is objective, so does that mean I am not a moral subjectivist because you believe I'm wrong about it? No.

Even Dawkins himself doesn't say he's a Gnostic Atheist because he doesn't put himself at a 7. Still, he's said even if God opened the skies and came down to speak to him directly, that he still wouldn't believe it was God. To me, that is a special kind of unbelief that means Dawkins is pretty much beyond the point of being saved if he is actually being truthful there. So I don't find the idea of Gnostic knowledge a useful category at all. The result would mean belief then, in almost every instance, has to do with everything. Hence, you can call yourself an Atheist, an Agnostic, or a Theist and that only these categories make sense.

There aren't that many Gnostic Atheists would claim to know that there is no god. But there are a ton of Gnostic Theists who claim that they know there is a god. Both of those groups are distinguished from the folks who don't believe or do believe (respectively), but don't claim to be sure.

I say this because Agnostic here would basically mean you think the probability for God existing is about 50% and not much more or less than that. But if you call yourself an Atheist or Theist, and you believe it with, let's say 55% probability, then that would be your belief.

No. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't give the odds at 50% because I don't know how to calculate the odds either. It's all unknown, but I am unconvinced there is strong evidence for a god (and I've looked quite a bit) so I am both agnostic (I don't know whether you're right) and I'm atheist (I don't believe you're right). And before you say it, no, that doesn't mean I do believe you're wrong.

 

[All Becomes New]

I never said they're not a martyr. James and Stephen definitely are martyrs. I don't understand what you're going on about.

Death is sad and tragic, but that doesn't mean it proves literally anything you want it to prove.

I know you think you've come close to the bar here, but let me explain why I'm being strict. It's because the conclusion you're driving toward is that a man rose from the dead. I can't just let you hand wave and fudge details to let that one slide through.

The solution to your problem is not evidence then, but something else. Of course it is "hard to believe someone was raised from the dead" just on the face of it without any connection to anything else. Fortunately, we have an entire part of the Bible that is basically one giant prophesy that just that would in fact happen. It's called the Old Testament. My pastor tells me to read the Old Testament to see how it leads to Christ. That is the function of the OT. Let me put it to you this way: If you were an eye witness to something like the resurrection, what would you expect from other people about your claim? Would you expect them to believe you? No, of course not. But if it was just a single event in history without anything else to back it up, then it would probably be impossible to convince other people on what you witnessed. But the Apostles all did many miracles to provide evidence for this other claim they were making, which was also supernatural.

As J. Warner Wallace puts it, everyone believes in a miracle. It's just that atheists believe the miracle of the entire universe coming from nothing. That's somewhat what he said about it and it actually makes intuitive sense if you stop and think about it.

The real problem, I think you have, is that you are willing to believe some things in the Bible, but not others. The problem with this is that you are judging these things based on the likelihood of them happening to you, and not as though those miracles in the Bible were done for a specific purpose, at a specific time, for a specific people, by God. I could very well tell you about a miracle that I have experienced that you probably would have to end up saying I was lying about something. But I wouldn't be lying. Its a claim about the supernatural. I am reasonably confident that it was some supernatural occurrence because the alternative seems extremely unlikely and I happen to believe in the supernatural. I was talking with someone else here about this, but I said I didn't want to tell them because they are going to be held accountable for what knowledge they have of God. I would apply this same logic to you. If you are not experiencing it first hand, then of course, you have reason to doubt me. But if it happened to you what happened to me, then it might be a different story. The point of me telling you this is that, yes, supernatural things happen and I have experienced them on more than one occasion. Some of those things I either do not have any kind of logical explanation of, or the explanation I arrive at is actually quite terrifying as equally as it is improbable. If you actually want to talk about this more, I would be perfectly open to talking in PM about it, but I don't like to tell anyone and everyone this stuff for the reason mentioned.

 

[All Becomes New]

It doesn't matter what you personally accept as a philosophical position. Some people are sure of things and claim knowledge of them, that's all that matters.

Here's an example. I am a moral subjectivist, but you believe that morality is objective, so does that mean I am not a moral subjectivist because you believe I'm wrong about it? No.

No, it means one of us is wrong and the other one is right.

There aren't that many Gnostic Atheists would claim to know that there is no god. But there are a ton of Gnostic Theists who claim that they know there is a god. Both of those groups are distinguished from the folks who don't believe or do believe (respectively), but don't claim to be sure.

Well, first of all, just based on the numbers of there being so many more people who are sure that God exists vs people who are sure God does not exist should tell you by that alone that it is more probable that God exists. Secondly, if that is not a useful metric, then I stand by my statement.

No. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't give the odds at 50% because I don't know how to calculate the odds either. It's all unknown, but I am unconvinced there is strong evidence for a god (and I've looked quite a bit) so I am both agnostic (I don't know whether you're right) and I'm atheist (I don't believe you're right). And before you say it, no, that doesn't mean I do believe you're wrong.

See, to me, that looks like a contradiction. How can you not know something and believe against something if it can't just be simply stated that you don't believe me?

 

[Moral Orel]

As J. Warner Wallace puts it, everyone believes in a miracle. It's just that atheists believe the miracle of the entire universe coming from nothing.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe this. In fact, I find the origins of the universe to be quite interesting, so I've read quite a few articles, and watched quite a few lectures on the topic, and of all the theories I've heard, not one of them suggests something coming from nothing. Can you show me even a single example of this?

 

[All Becomes New]

I'm an atheist and I don't believe this. In fact, I find the origins of the universe to be quite interesting, so I've read quite a few articles, and watched quite a few lectures on the topic, and of all the theories I've heard, not one of them suggests something coming from nothing. Can you show me even a single example of this?

Well, I can tell you most of the popular atheists believe the universe came from nothing. Does that help? I don't mean to be rude, but the idea that there was always something there isn't scientifically verifiable. people have opinions, but the matter, as far as real science goes, is pretty much closed on this subject. Personally I am agnostic on whether God created the universe Ex Nihilo or Ex Materia, but that's splitting hairs at this point.

I'd be happy to read a scholarly source on an alternative that the universe came from something else though. As far as I know the most common theory against the universe coming from nothing is the multiverse theory, which brings in problems of its own.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The solution to your problem is not evidence then, but something else. Of course it is "hard to believe someone was raised from the dead" just on the face of it without any connection to anything else. Fortunately, we have an entire part of the Bible that is basically one giant prophesy that just that would in fact happen. It's called the Old Testament. My pastor tells me to read the Old Testament to see how it leads to Christ. That is the function of the OT. Let me put it to you this way: If you were an eye witness to something like the resurrection, what would you expect from other people about your claim? Would you expect them to believe you? No, of course not. But if it was just a single event in history without anything else to back it up, then it would probably be impossible to convince other people on what you witnessed. But the Apostles all did many miracles to provide evidence for this other claim they were making, which was also supernatural.

As J. Warner Wallace puts it, everyone believes in a miracle. It's just that atheists believe the miracle of the entire universe coming from nothing. That's somewhat what he said about it and it actually makes intuitive sense if you stop and think about it.

The real problem, I think you have, is that you are willing to believe some things in the Bible, but not others. The problem with this is that you are judging these things based on the likelihood of them happening to you, and not as though those miracles in the Bible were done for a specific purpose, at a specific time, for a specific people, by God. I could very well tell you about a miracle that I have experienced that you probably would have to end up saying I was lying about something. But I wouldn't be lying. Its a claim about the supernatural. I am reasonably confident that it was some supernatural occurrence because the alternative seems extremely unlikely and I happen to believe in the supernatural. I was talking with someone else here about this, but I said I didn't want to tell them because they are going to be held accountable for what knowledge they have of God. I would apply this same logic to you. If you are not experiencing it first hand, then of course, you have reason to doubt me. But if it happened to you what happened to me, then it might be a different story. The point of me telling you this is that, yes, supernatural things happen and I have experienced them on more than one occasion. Some of those things I either do not have any kind of logical explanation of, or the explanation I arrive at is actually quite terrifying as equally as it is improbable. If you actually want to talk about this more, I would be perfectly open to talking in PM about it, but I don't like to tell anyone and everyone this stuff for the reason mentioned.

Imagine if you asked a Muslim a specific question and you got all this song and dance instead with no answer to your question in sight, along with being berated for asking the question.

 

[All Becomes New]

Imagine if you asked a Muslim a specific question and you got all this song and dance instead with no answer to your question in sight, along with being berated for asking the question.

You didn't really answer my question either, to be fair. I ask where you got your criteria for believing Christianity is True from. Now, my guess is that you came across some information that says that your criteria isn't available, which is why you have the criteria you have. I'm perfectly willing to say I am wrong about that if I am, but that is what it looks like to me. You answered saying why you were strict with your criteria, but this doesn't actually answer how you came up with your criteria. I'm just trying to keep you honest here.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, I can tell you most of the popular atheists believe the universe came from nothing. Does that help? I don't mean to be rude, but the idea that there was always something there isn't scientifically verifiable. people have opinions, but the matter, as far as real science goes, is pretty much closed on this subject.

You could tell me that, but you'd be wrong. Show me one scientific theory that says the universe came from nothing. One.

Oh, and the idea that there was ever nothing isn't scientifically verifiable at the moment either, so where does that leave us?

I'd be happy to read a scholarly source on an alternative that the universe came from something else though. As far as I know the most common theory against the universe coming from nothing is the multiverse theory, which brings in problems of its own.

Multiverse theory and the singularity are the two most widely held theories, neither of which involve something coming from nothing.

 

[All Becomes New]

Multiverse theory and the singularity are the two most widely held theories, neither of which involve something coming from nothing.

And there is exactly ZERO evidence of them.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, it means one of us is wrong and the other one is right.

Right, so your objection to their claim fails.

Well, first of all, just based on the numbers of there being so many more people who are sure that God exists vs people who are sure God does not exist should tell you by that alone that it is more probable that God exists. Secondly, if that is not a useful metric, then I stand by my statement.

That is known as the "appeal to popularity fallacy", so no, it isn't evidence of anything. It's a commonly made error of logic. And the statement you want to stand by fails because not everyone prescribes to the same philosophical ideas that you do which was settled in the first section of this post.

See, to me, that looks like a contradiction. How can you not know something and believe against something if it can't just be simply stated that you don't believe me?

I don't "believe against" you. I don't believe your claim. That doesn't mean I believe your claim is false. Those are very different statements.

 

[Moral Orel]

And there is exactly ZERO evidence of them.

And now I know that you haven't actually looked into them, because this is false.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You didn't really answer my question either, to be fair. I ask where you got your criteria for believing Christianity is True from.

I've stated multiple times that this is an argument that apologists make.

Now, my guess is that you came across some information that says that your criteria isn't available, which is why you have the criteria you have.

If you're just going to assume the worst of me as a default placeholder to missing information, despite having been told said information multiple times, then I'm going to very quickly deem this a stupid conversation and a waste of time.

I'm perfectly willing to say I am wrong about that if I am, but that is what it looks like to me. You answered saying why you were strict with your criteria, but this doesn't actually answer how you came up with your criteria. I'm just trying to keep you honest here.

 

[All Becomes New]

I don't "believe against" you.

It sure seems like that to me.

 

[All Becomes New]

And now I know that you haven't actually looked into them, because this is false.

Let me try and restate it: There's no science test we can do to test that hypothesis because we live in this universe and not another one. It's also an explanation that is just as "unbelievable" as God, I would guess, for some people. Dawkins seems to hold that the universe did indeed come from nothing.

 

[Moral Orel]

It sure seems like that to me.

Okay. You can feel how you feel, that's fine. I'll go ahead and take all the absence of replies to everything else I've said as concessions that I'm right.

 

[Moral Orel]

Let me try and restate it: There's no science test we can do to test that hypothesis because we live in this universe and not another one.

Did you know black holes were originally thought up using nothing but math? Then we went and looked for them and found them. "Science tests" aren't the only means we have of discovering things about our universe.

It's also an explanation that is just as "unbelievable" as God, I would guess, for some people.

Okay, some folks are incredulous, so what?

Dawkins seems to hold that the universe did indeed come from nothing.

What did he say to ever make you think that? The ethical thing to do here is to actually cite him saying such a thing if you're going to make accusations about a specific person.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What did he say to ever make you think that?

And even if Dawkins said something like that, atheism has no popes.

 

[All Becomes New]

Okay. You can feel how you feel, that's fine. I'll go ahead and take all the absence of replies to everything else I've said as concessions that I'm right.

You can view it that way if you want, but that doesn't mean it is true. It could be possible, for example, that I think talking about these things with you is simply not getting us anywhere.