Win Prizes Ask an Atheist II

[Gethelred]

Welcome to the Ask an Atheist thread II.

Previous part:

Win Prizes - Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack. As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them. If you've still got...

www.bigfooty.com

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Vdubs]

Firatly, it’s not losing or declining faith. It’s rejection of the concept of an omnipotent supernatural being who creates everything. It’s rejection of a concept for which there is no objective evidence and that serves no explanatory purpose.

Secondly, we (or at least I - I shouldn’t deign to talk for others, even though I suspect most come from the same place) don’t hold our point of view to help ourselves. It’s just what it is, regardless of whether it “helps” me as an person.

I get my “help” from a perspective that we have a short time on Earth and we better make the most of it. Because then there’s nothing. And from a moral code that isn’t based on fear of punishment, or based on antiquated “rules” written by men thousands of years ago, but is based on a simpler edict of treating others as I would like to be treated myself.

Several people here that I communicate with, have had a faith previously.

Some people do not like themselves to be treated well at all, but we won't go there.

 

[peetoo]

I wonder what portion of those saying they don't like islam also don't like religions generally especially expansionist oned

 

[evolved2]

It would seem contradictory to argue that the universe doesn't need a cause but God does.

If complexity requires a creator, the Universe and god need creators.

If complexity does not require a creator, god becomes superfluous.

Saying that god is an uncaused cause is special pleading - a logical fallacy.

 

[carltonchelsea]

So you can not reply. I'm not asking to be deconverted, just asking you to prove without doubt why you know that God does not exist, and that people can not get to God by being Christians.

Easily discredited, Yahweh is the son of El, he isn’t believed in anymore, and so is Yahweh.
All gods are creations of archaic men, ignorant fools, resigned to their historical lack of understanding how our universe works!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

“Even the once-doubting Sir Lionel Luckhoo, identified by the Guinness Book of World Records as the most successful attorney in the world, was forced to conclude after an exhaustive analysis of the evidence, “I say unequivocally that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

Sir Lionel Luckhoo obviously had a more flexible definition of the word “dead”.

One cannot “rise from the dead” because “dead” means dead.

If someone has “risen from the dead” they cannot have been dead. They must have been something other than dead.

I’ll stress again, “dead” means dead.

Not that hard to grasp, unless we want words to temporarily mean something utterly different to what they actually mean. And I’m sure you’ll agree that’s not a great idea.

 

[Vdubs]

Sir Lionel Luckhoo obviously had a more flexible definition of the word “dead”.

One cannot “rise from the dead” because “dead” means dead.

If someone has “risen from the dead” they cannot have been dead. They must have been something other than dead.

I’ll stress again, “dead” means dead.

Not that hard to grasp, unless we want words to temporarily mean something utterly different to what they actually mean. And I’m sure you’ll agree that’s not a great idea.

unless you are Jesus Christ, and a miracle occurred, which is of course why Easter is revered .

 

[evolved2]

unless you are Jesus Christ, and a miracle occurred, which is of course why Easter is revered .

Any religion can be true if you believe in miracles.

 

[Roylion]

unless you are Jesus Christ, and a miracle occurred,

There's no reason to suppose a 'miracle' occurred. There's no evidence that any resurrection from the dead occurred.

 

[Vdubs]

Any religion can be true if you believe in miracles.

Name one.

1. The earliest evidence that Jesus rose is that His tomb was in fact empty. Those opposed to Christ did not deny that the tomb was empty, rather they accused the disciples of stealing Jesus’s body. Liberal and conservative scholars alike agree that Christ was in fact killed and buried—but you can’t concede his burial without admitting that his burial place was vacant days later.
2. The Bible records that those who first witnessed the empty tomb were women. At this time and place in history, the testimony of women was not trusted nor allowed in court. That women were the first to witness Christ’s resurrection would have actually been an embarrassment to their male contemporaries. The point is, if the disciples were going to invent this story, they would have had men do the witnessing and testifying. They wouldn’t have left it to women.
3. During the forty days between Jesus’s resurrection and ascension into heaven He appeared numerous times to groups of people—sometimes dozens and even hundreds at once. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says that many of the witnesses were still living when he penned the letter. He is effectively inviting the reader to interview the witnesses. He's saying, “If you don’t believe me, find the witnesses and ask them yourself.” Luke, Peter, and John all say that Jesus appeared to them and many others, as well.
4. A small band of insignificant, unimportant believers turned the Roman Empire upside down within the span of a few hundred years following Jesus’s resurrection. Their belief that Jesus was who He said He was led to their torture, banishment, and cruel deaths. They were hung on crosses (right-side up and upside down), fed to lions, beaten by gladiators, hung on posts and lit on fire, and more. It is inconceivable that anyone would willingly go to their torturous death for a lie.
5. Not only did people become transformed as a result of the resurrection, but so did traditions. Recognising that Jesus was the substance that fulfilled the Sabbath, believers began to celebrate the Lord’s Day—Sunday, the day He rose from the grave—rather than Saturday, the law-given Sabbath. Additionally, believers saw that Jesus was the substance that fulfilled animal sacrifices and therefore they suddenly stopped offering animal sacrifices at the temple. Lastly, rather than having the Passover meal they had the Lord’s Supper. Within weeks of the resurrection, believing Jews willingly gave up their sociological and theological traditions that were their identity to commit themselves to Christianity.

 

[evolved2]

Name one.

Every single religion that was ever imagined. Name one that can't be possible with miracles?

1. The earliest evidence that Jesus rose is that His tomb was in fact empty. Those opposed to Christ did not deny that the tomb was empty, rather they accused the disciples of stealing Jesus’s body. Liberal and conservative scholars alike agree that Christ was in fact killed and buried—but you can’t concede his burial without admitting that his burial place was vacant days later.
2. The Bible records that those who first witnessed the empty tomb were women. At this time and place in history, the testimony of women was not trusted nor allowed in court. That women were the first to witness Christ’s resurrection would have actually been an embarrassment to their male contemporaries. The point is, if the disciples were going to invent this story, they would have had men do the witnessing and testifying. They wouldn’t have left it to women.
3. During the forty days between Jesus’s resurrection and ascension into heaven He appeared numerous times to groups of people—sometimes dozens and even hundreds at once. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says that many of the witnesses were still living when he penned the letter. He is effectively inviting the reader to interview the witnesses. He's saying, “If you don’t believe me, find the witnesses and ask them yourself.” Luke, Peter, and John all say that Jesus appeared to them and many others, as well.
4. A small band of insignificant, unimportant believers turned the Roman Empire upside down within the span of a few hundred years following Jesus’s resurrection. Their belief that Jesus was who He said He was led to their torture, banishment, and cruel deaths. They were hung on crosses (right-side up and upside down), fed to lions, beaten by gladiators, hung on posts and lit on fire, and more. It is inconceivable that anyone would willingly go to their torturous death for a lie.
5. Not only did people become transformed as a result of the resurrection, but so did traditions. Recognising that Jesus was the substance that fulfilled the Sabbath, believers began to celebrate the Lord’s Day—Sunday, the day He rose from the grave—rather than Saturday, the law-given Sabbath. Additionally, believers saw that Jesus was the substance that fulfilled animal sacrifices and therefore they suddenly stopped offering animal sacrifices at the temple. Lastly, rather than having the Passover meal they had the Lord’s Supper. Within weeks of the resurrection, believing Jews willingly gave up their sociological and theological traditions that were their identity to commit themselves to Christianity.

Yawn.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

unless you are Jesus Christ, and a miracle occurred, which is of course why Easter is revered .

Miracles = horseshit. Sorry.

"Dead" is dead. It cannot mean anything else.

Find another word to describe what you're describing.

The two words utterly central to life itself are "life" (of course), and equally as central, "death".

If we're going to smudge the meaning of them we might as well give up completely.

 

[Vdubs]

Miracles = horseshit. Sorry.

"Dead" is dead. It cannot mean anything else.

Find another word to describe what you're describing.

The two words utterly central to life itself are "life" (of course), and equally as central, "death".

If we're going to smudge the meaning of them we might as well give up completely.

How indignant.
So we've been celebrating the resurrection of Jesus for >2000 years

 

[Vdubs]

Every single religion that was ever imagined. Name one that can't be possible with miracles?

Yawn.

Great effort.

 

[Vdubs]

Miracles = horseshit. Sorry.

"Dead" is dead. It cannot mean anything else.

Find another word to describe what you're describing.

The two words utterly central to life itself are "life" (of course), and equally as central, "death".

If we're going to smudge the meaning of them we might as well give up completely.

Miracles = horseshit. Sorry.

"Dead" is dead. It cannot mean anything else.

Find another word to describe what you're describing.

The two words utterly central to life itself are "life" (of course), and equally as central, "death".

If we're going to smudge the meaning of them we might as well give up completely.

to be sure, to be sure,
why on earth do you think we follow Jesus Christ rather than "give up"?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

How indignant.
So we've been celebrating the resurrection of Jesus for >2000 years

We've been celebrating the pagan goddess Eostre far longer. Hence the name of the holiday.

 

[Vdubs]

We've been celebrating the pagan goddess Eostre far longer. Hence the name of the holiday.

Good on you. Join the thread.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

to be sure, to be sure,
why on earth do you think we follow Jesus Christ rather than "give up"?

My point is you can only follow that religion by deciding that one of the fundamental words of human existence means something different to what it fundamentally means.

What is your definition of "dead"?

Mine is "dead".

Christians are saying "dead" also means "not dead".

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

How indignant.
So we've been celebrating the resurrection of Jesus for >2000 years

Yes well it's clearly a mistake isn't it.

 

[Chief]

How indignant.
So we've been celebrating the resurrection of Jesus for >2000 years

Well, it's less than 2000 years because they only started talking about him something like 100 years after he supposedly lived.

Not sus at all.

 

[Roylion]

Name one.

1. The earliest evidence that Jesus rose is that His tomb was in fact empty. Those opposed to Christ did not deny that the tomb was empty, rather they accused the disciples of stealing Jesus’s body. Liberal and conservative scholars alike agree that Christ was in fact killed and buried—but you can’t concede his burial without admitting that his burial place was vacant days later.

That is not necessarily so.

The Gospels were clearly written to show how Jesus was the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. The Gospels were written not as historical works (i.e accounts). The Gospels are works that are theological and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize.

And they weren't written by eyewitnesses to the actual events described.

So the Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels appears to be largely fictional. Effectively a theological and literary construct. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors.

The empty tomb is far from a historical fact and many mainstream scholars think its a literary invention. The empty tomb story appears to be a late addition to the tradition, appearing first in Mark, written some 35 to 40 years after the events it purports to describe. Paul mentions that Jesus was buried in 1 Corinthians 15, but nowhere does he mention an empty tomb. As the empty tomb cannot be established as an early tradition adds to the doubts about its historicity.

A few comments from various Biblical scholars who believe it was a later invention of the Gospel writers.

Robert M. Price, Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute:
“That the Empty Tomb story is Mark’s own creation is evident from the fact that he knows about the young man, his message, and the women’s refusal to tell anyone about this encounter. If they told no one, how does Mark know? He is ‘the omniscient narrator’—of fiction!”

John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop, Prolific author on early Christianity: “The angels of the empty tomb, the tomb itself with its massive stone and its female visitors, to say nothing of the entire burial tradition, must be dismissed as not factual. These parts of the tradition were quite simply the myths and legends that arose later in a Jerusalem setting.”

Dale B. Martin, Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University: “If the empty tomb stories were historically true, [one] would strongly expect that the tomb would have become a place of veneration among early Christians. If they knew where it was, why didn’t they go back? It was very popular in the ancient world for people to have picnics around tombs. The family and the loved ones would get together on the anniversary of the death and they would actually celebrate the person’s memory with a picnic. If they knew the tomb where Jesus had been raised from, why did it take over 200 years for Christians to start venerating the tomb? And then they had to pick one that doesn’t seem to fit the archaeology of the Biblical narratives! It took basically Helen, the mother of Emperor Constantine, to go back and choose period traditions about where the tomb might have been. [And] she said, ‘OK, this is the tomb, build the church of the sepulchure here!’ That’s in the 4th century! If [earlier Christians] knew where the tomb was, why didn’t they use it as a place to pray, as a place to hold Easter worship services? There’s no evidence that early Christians knew where the tomb was until too late to count as historical evidence.”

Gerd Lüdemann, Chair of History and Literature of Early Christianity, Univ. Göttingen: “Investigation into the burial of Jesus [suggests] that his followers did not even know where their leader had been buried […] Either the Jews entrusted Joseph of Arimathea with putting the body of Jesus in a tomb or Jews unknown to us ‘buried’ the corpse in a place which can no longer be identified […] None of the [empty tomb narratives] come from eyewitnesses; they have passed through the hand of the community and/or a theologically trained figure. So the historical yield is unsatisfactory.”

Peter Kiirby: “The empty tomb narrative is a fiction. It is the invention of the author of Mark, from which all other reports are dependent on. There are signs of fictional creation in the narrative, and it contains several improbabilities. There are several plausible alternate reconstructions of the events that exclude the discovery of an empty tomb.”

Michael Goulder, Professor of Biblical Studies, Univ. Birmingham: “Romans almost always left the bodies of crucified criminals on the cross, where unburied and a prey to birds, they would be a horror and a warning to passers-by […]. We should assume that Jesus’ fate followed [this] normal pattern and that his body was left hanging for perhaps forty-eight hours. For the Jerusalem view of resurrection all that was necessary was that Jesus should have been seen. […] The trouble [of the empty tomb story] is that at so many points it is implausible, and even contradictory. If Jesus’ body is to be found missing, it will have to be buried in the tomb of a wealthy sympathizer. Joseph of Arimathaea supplies this need: he is an honorable councilor and has been expecting the kingdom of God. But then surely this is what Jesus has spent the week proclaiming in the temple; and if he is a councilor, presumably that means a member of the Sanhedrin, and he will have been present at the recent meeting, and so have been part of the unanimous vote condemning Jesus for blasphemy. A group of women goes out to anoint Jesus’ body “exceedingly early,” not knowing who is to roll away the enormous stone covering the tomb: although they are part of a community of tough men, some of them their relations, they would rather take a chance on meeting a gardener, or some such person, who happened to be around at 4 a.m. The point of the angel’s message is to have the disciples directed to Galilee, but the women say nothing to anyone in their fear, so the whole tale is pointless. The thought must arise that it is a late development of the Markan church, and that the women’s silence is an explanation of why it has not been heard before. In a divided church, those who thought physical resurrection an absurdity would not take kindly to a brand new story that Jesus’ body was buried in a stranger’s tomb, and had left it in the night. They would inevitably ask, “Why have we never heard this before?” “Ah,” replies the wily evangelist, “the women said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.”

Randel Helms, Professor at the Department of English, Arizona State Univ., author of ‘Gospel Fictions’ & ‘Who Wrote the Gospels?’: “Paul did not know the Gospel resurrection stories, for the simple reason that they had not yet been invented, and the four evangelists, who wrote twenty to fifty years after Paul, either did not know his list of appearances or chose to ignore it. Perhaps most surprisingly of all the differences is Paul’s failure to mention the legend of the empty tomb, which was, for the writer of the earliest Gospel, the only public, visible evidence for the resurrection… Indeed, [Paul] had probably never heard of it; it was a legend that grew up in Christian communities different from his own.”

Robert W. Funk, Biblical scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar and the Westar Institute: “[I take the position that] the empty-tomb story found in the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark is a late legend, introduced into the tradition for the first time by Mark. It was unknown to Paul. It was also unknown to the Sayings Gospel Q and the Gospel of Thomas. Evidently the empty-tomb story and the reports of appearances did not come to play a central part in the Jesus tradition until several decades after Jesus’ death.”

and

"....the empty tomb story was actually created by Mark 40 years or so after Jesus died and probably had nothing to do with the original experience,"

Christopher F. Evans, Professor of New Testament, King’s College, London: “The status of [the empty tomb story] in Mark is not easy to discern. The empty tomb does not seem to have belonged to the earliest kerygma of the resurrection, and should probably not be read out of either the references to the burial (1 Cor. 15.4; Rom. 6.4; Col. 2.12) […] Attempts to establish an historical kernel of [Mark’s] empty tomb story are not very convincing […]. It is in itself the proclamation of the resurrection, and is made so by the non-naturalistic elements, i.e the contradiction in the women setting out with the question, ‘Who will roll away the stone?’, and the presence of the interpreting angel, who, in place of the Lord, utters the vital statements. It is difficult to see what historical nucleus would be left if these were removed. And The very basis of the narrative, a visit for a delayed embalming of a body already buried, is itself improbable, and is dropped by Matthew and John.”

James Crossley, Professor of Bible, Society and Politics, St. Mary’s Univ., Twickenham: “The earliest evidence for the empty tomb has no genuine eyewitness support (in contrast to the resurrection appearances) and Mk 16.8 suggests that the story was not well known. The first resurrection appearances are more likely to be visionary experiences interpreted as a bodily raised figure, which meant that the early accounts of Paul and Mark could assume an empty tomb even if historically this was not the case.”
Some of other academics that also argue that the empty tomb is a fiction:

• Marcus J. Borg Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture, Oregon State Univ.
• Günther Bornkamm, Professor of New Testament, Univ. Heidelberg
• Joel Carmichael Columbia Univ. & Oxford trained Historian, author of ‘The Death of Jesus’, ‘The Birth of Christianity: Reality and Myth, and ‘The Unriddling of Christian Origins: a Secular Account’
• Maurice Casey Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages & Literature, Univ. Nottingham
• Bart D. Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• John Dominic Crossan, New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, former Catholic priest, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar

In any case, even if the empty tomb was a historical fact, this is not evidence for resurrection. There are naturalistic explanations for the disappearance of the body of Jesus (if we regard that as a fact) that fit the claimed historical facts' far more plausibly than the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

1. The Bible records that those who first witnessed the empty tomb were women. At this time and place in history, the testimony of women was not trusted nor allowed in court. That women were the first to witness Christ’s resurrection would have actually been an embarrassment to their male contemporaries. The point is, if the disciples were going to invent this story, they would have had men do the witnessing and testifying. They wouldn’t have left it to women.

A close, comparative reading of the Gospel accounts reveals significant differences and contradictions in their descriptions of the events following Jesus' crucifixion. These inconsistencies concern who visited the tomb, the state of the stone covering the tomb, instructions given to the women, the women's subsequent actions, and where the disciples encountered the resurrected Jesus.

Such discrepancies challenge the coherence of the Gospel's resurrection narrative and suggest elements of legendary embellishments within the story.

The women discovering the tomb is not a problem for a number of reasons. For one, it was the job of women to prepare bodies for burial. Also, Mark states categorically that the disciples scattered after Jesus' arrest, probably back to their homes in Galilee, a journey which would take at least a week. Additionally, one could easily imagine women having a vested interest in creating a story about women finding the empty tomb first, since women were apparently very prominent in the early Jesus movement.

Historian Laura Robinson has pointed out, that it makes perfect sense to make up female witnesses if the story of the empty tomb was invented several decades after Jesus's death and Christians needed an explanation for why no one had heard of the tomb before. If women's testimony was not trusted and the supposed witnesses to the empty tomb were women, it makes sense why the empty tomb story wasn't widely known at first. Thus, women's 'untrustworthiness' was precisely why the Gospel writers would have made up women as their witnesses.

Historian and Biblical scholar Dr. Richard Carrier has also suggested, women were in fact trusted in many contexts, and the target audience of early Christianity was not necessarily the entirety of the rather patriarchal society at that time. Christianity initially converted more women than men, and the early church was supported by generous, wealthy female members.

1. During the forty days between Jesus’s resurrection and ascension into heaven He appeared numerous times to groups of people—sometimes dozens and even hundreds at once. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says that many of the witnesses were still living when he penned the letter. He is effectively inviting the reader to interview the witnesses. He's saying, “If you don’t believe me, find the witnesses and ask them yourself.” Luke, Peter, and John all say that Jesus appeared to them and many others, as well.

Like the empty tomb story, there are solid, historical grounds for rejecting the appearance stories. First, as many scholars have pointed out, there was not a single eyewitness to the resurrection itself. We do not even have eyewitness accounts of the people who claimed to see Jesus after his death. All we have is other people's accounts of what the eyewitnesses purportedly saw, and these accounts are typically sketchy and were written many years later. Thus, the historian who wants to understand what the resurrection event was must use later, sketchy, second-hand accounts of what the eyewitnesses saw, and from these accounts he must try to determine what the resurrection event actually was.

Secondly the original manuscripts of Mark, which is considered by most critical Biblical scholars to be the earliest gospel, ends at 16:8 without the appearance story of the risen Jesus in 16:9-20, which was added later. The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century, that is c. AD 150. So the earliest gospel accounts of the resurrection contained no appearance stories.

Finally, many of the specific appearances cited by Christian apologists may be disputed on purely historical grounds. For example, if the account in Acts of Paul's experience is accurate – which is highly questionable - then Paul did not see Jesus at all; all he saw was a light. Likewise, the appearance to 500 is rejected by several scholars as unhistorical because it is only mentioned by Paul. If such an event had actually happened, it would have been the strongest evidence the gospel writers would have had for the resurrection. The fact that they did not mention it highly suggests that it did not happen. (See the chronology of Paul's letters and the Gospels below and an elaboration above).

Paul also indicates that Peter was the first to have a vision of Jesus. What about the women at the empty tomb? Matthew 28:9 says it was Mary Magdalene and the 'other Mary'. John says it was Mary Magdalene. Does Paul not know about them?

Even if the vision experiences were historical, I see it as little different to the supposed appearances of the 'Blessed Virgin Mary' in modern times, as she is attested as appearing to 1000 people at once in some times and places. The "Miracle of the Sun" (also known as the Miracle of Fatima) was supposedly the direct experience of a vision of the sun 'dancing' by between 30,000 - 100,000 people. This supposedly occurred after three shepherd children had claimed that they were promised by the Virgin Mary she would perform a miracle to show people they were telling the truth about the children seeing the Virgin Mary, and so caused the crowds to see the Sun make "incredible" movements in the sky.

I see no reason to suppose that the "miracle of the Sun actually occurred, given there are superior naturalistic explanations, (similar to the resurrection attributed to Jesus) on top of several other inconsistencies and problems with the "miracle's" veracity. In other words their "experience" (whatever it was) did not actually happen.

Science writer Benjamin Radford stated that "the sun did not really dance in the sky. We know this because, of course, everyone on Earth is under the same sun, and if the closest dying star to us suddenly began doing celestial gymnastics a few billion other people would surely have reported it."

In 'The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary', Kevin McClure wrote that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the Sun, since similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis, the crowd saw what it wanted to see.

1. A small band of insignificant, unimportant believers turned the Roman Empire upside down within the span of a few hundred years following Jesus’s resurrection. Their belief that Jesus was who He said He was led to their torture, banishment, and cruel deaths. They were hung on crosses (right-side up and upside down), fed to lions, beaten by gladiators, hung on posts and lit on fire, and more. It is inconceivable that anyone would willingly go to their torturous death for a lie.

Ahhh... the oft-told claim made by Christian apologists that "Jesus' followers could not have faced torture and death unless they were convinced of His resurrection and they would have never have suffered and died violently for a 'lie'.

They may not have suffered and died violently at all but even if they had, history is littered with individuals and groups prepared to die for their beliefs - both political and religious, mistaken or not.

For instance, followers of radical interpretations of Islam have been known to undertake acts of martyrdom, convinced of the divine mandate for their sacrifice. This willingness to face death for one's beliefs, while indicative of deep conviction, doesn’t serve as conclusive proof of the objective truth of those beliefs.

To examine the martyrdom of the disciples and whether the above statement is in fact correct, it is instrumental to know how the disciples died and for what reason they died. The bible only reports the deaths of two disciples: James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:1-3) and Judas Iscariot (Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18). Of course, Judas could hardly be claimed as a witness, not only because he betrayed Jesus, but because he died before the resurrection, according to the New Testament. The passage on James also gives us no indication about the circumstances of James' death, simply stating that Herod decided to round up some of the church members and put them to death, among which was James.

We have to look outside the bible for the familiar stories of the early Christian martyrs, which come primarily from the 2nd and 3rd century authors Hippolytus and Eusebius. Written over a hundred years after the disciples supposedly met their various ends, these accounts can only be chalked up to tradition, and the authors unfortunately did not disclose their sources. However, Hippolytus reports natural deaths for four of the twelve disciples (John, Matthew, Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot), which means that, along with Judas/Matthias, nearly half of the disciples were not martyred under any tradition.

When we turn to the gospels, we see that the traditional authors of the Gospels, Matthew and John didn't die martyrs at all and there is significant doubt that Mark and Luke died as martyrs. Mark and Luke were not among the twelve disciples or among those who witnessed the resurrection. Thus, even if we presume traditional authorship of the four gospels, none of the authors could have died for what they knew to be a lie. Luke died at age 84 in Boeotia, according to a fairly early and widespread tradition and supposedly hanged from an olive tree but this is a later tradition. Same with Mark. He is supposedly dragged to his death through the streets of Alexandria in Egypt, but this is also a late tradition.

Matthew and John didn't die martyrs at all and Mark and Luke, even if they had died for their faith, were not present at the tomb or the ascension and so would not likely have known their beliefs to be misplaced. Paul, who purportedly authored almost half the New Testament, was also not present during the resurrection, only seeing Jesus in a vision sometime later. There is no evidence the Christian scriptures were written by martyrs.

The supposed deaths of the other apostles are even less significant given that we don't have any testimony from them. Traditions of martyrdom for figures like Thomas and Philip don't come until approximately 100-150 years after their deaths. This should be enough to raise suspicion as to the authenticity of such martyrdom legends, and it is also worth noting that people have been made into martyrs after the fact by their followers, when they may have been killed without any chance to recant their faith.

1. Within weeks of the resurrection, believing Jews willingly gave up their sociological and theological traditions that were their identity to commit themselves to Christianity.

This is not evidence of the historicity of the Resurrection.

Historical precedents demonstrate that legends and mythical attributes can start forming and circulating soon after an individual's life or after certain events. For example:

• Stories and fables surrounding Alexander the Great began to circulate in the Mediterranean shortly after his death. The historians of Alexander the Great were famous (or infamous) for presenting this king as the superhuman son of Zeus within a generation of his death.
• The divine attributes of Caesar Augustus were believed by many immediately following his victory at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC.
• The belief that Emperor Vespasian performed miraculous healings of a blind man and a lame man was recorded by Tacitus only 20 years after Vespasian's death, suggesting that these stories originated during, or shortly after, Vespasian’s lifetime.

These examples illustrate that myths and legends don’t necessarily wait for the passage of generations. They can begin to form and spread within years, or even months, of an event or an individual's lifetime.

 

[Frank Bunn]

If complexity requires a creator, the Universe and god need creators.

If complexity does not require a creator, god becomes superfluous.

Saying that god is an uncaused cause is special pleading - a logical fallacy.

Complexity is interesting. Our universe began with very low complexity. But it had a set of properties that allowed objects such as stars and planets to form. Planets gave rise to life - that evolved towards greater complexity.

The future of that complexity could be intelligence and consciousness that we might consider god-like - such as the ability to create simulated worlds where the inhabitants have no awareness of their reality. Or the ability to manipulate the conditions of a 'big crunch' to create a future universe that is fine tuned for that huge process to continue.

Or it could be that our universe is one of countless others and by chance it had the conditions that were perfect for life and complexity to form - and the rest are lifeless emptiness. Evolution at a grand scale.

 

[Boston tiger]

[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]]]]" data-quote="SBD Gonzalez" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Sir Lionel Luckhoo obviously had a more flexible definition of the word “dead”.

One cannot “rise from the dead” because “dead” means dead.

If someone has “risen from the dead” they cannot have been dead. They must have been something other than dead.

I’ll stress again, “dead” means dead.

Not that hard to grasp, unless we want words to temporarily mean something utterly different to what they actually mean. And I’m sure you’ll agree that’s not a great idea.

That’s right . If miracles were commonplace then there is more than enough historical evidence of a resurrection. Everything we know about human behaviour points to this man Jesus coming back to life and motivating the hell out of his followers ( not so much before his crucifixion but definitely afterwards ) ….except of course there is the scientific fact that you can’t come back to life after you die.
I guess it’s a scientific fact ?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

That’s right . If miracles were commonplace then there is more than enough historical evidence of a resurrection. Everything we know about human behaviour points to this man Jesus coming back to life and motivating the hell out of his followers ( not so much before his crucifixion but definitely afterwards ) ….except of course there is the scientific fact that you can’t come back to life after you die.
I guess it’s a scientific fact ?

What's your definition of "dead"?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Our solar system vs TON 618, one of the largest black holes ever discovered:

TON 618 is a supermassive black hole estimated to be around 40 billion times the mass of our Sun. And it is significantly larger than our solar system. With a diameter roughly 30-40 times that of the solar system's furthest reaches, our entire solar system, from the Sun to the distant Oort Cloud, would vanish within TON 618’s gravitational grasp.

(Image: NASA)

But yeah, some force with strangely human attributes took an uncommon interest in one kind of mammal inhabitant of one planet that would be an invisible dot inside the dot you see here.

Religious believers - science has proved you wrong in every single explanation your ancient texts had for the origin of our world. Adapt to that reality by facing up to it. Not by elevating Belief way beyond any point that it is fit for purpose.

 

[Ghost Patrol]