Atheistic Meme re: Good Friday--Your Thoughts?

[KnowtheSilence]

Except, curiously, they will cling to their emotional rejection of religion even when the journey of questioning leads them straight to the Altar.

You appear to enjoy talking about people you don’t know as though you have a better idea what is going on in their heads than they do.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Excellent. Then it was an otiose point.

If you choose to ignore the rest of that paragraph, I can understand why you’d make the mistake of thinking that.

Can you please summarize what Habermas’ argument for the resurrection is before you offer your criticism with his methodological flaws?

He has surveyed thousands of articles over the past few decades that talk about Jesus’ and the supposed events surrounding it. From there he has purported to try to establish what percentage of “experts” think that those events are historical vs not historical, and had taken what he says are the most agreed upon facts as the “minimal facts,” facts that even skeptics should be able to agree are at least historically true. From there, he argues that an actual resurrection is the best explanation of those facts.

 

[PRmerger]

You appear to enjoy talking about people you don’t know as though you have a better idea what is going on in their heads better than they do.

I have been talking with people about religion for a very long time, yes.

Also, your 180 or so post count is cute.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I have been talking with people about religion for a very long time, yes.

Also, your 180 or so post count is cute.

Well isn’t that interesting. I prefer face-to-face conversations rather than online ones, and they’ve taught me it’s best to try and avoid making assumptions about other people and what they think. Fascinating how our experiences shape us.

 

[PRmerger]

No, we don’t. I’ve said nothing of the kind. I think that something always existed and that this thing is impersonal and natural.

Incidentally, the idea that the agent which created the universe, (all space, time, matter and energy) is “natural” is absurd on its face.

Nothing that is “natural” can create nature.

One has to create some weird mental gymnastics in order to accept the obvious illogic here.

“Why, yes, it’s entirely possible for Zuckerberg to have gotten the idea to create Facebook from seeing a post on Facebook!”

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Incidentally, the idea that the agent which created the universe, (all space, time, matter and energy) is “natural” is absurd on its face.

Nothing that is “natural” can create nature.

One has to create some weird mental gymnastics in order to accept the obvious illogic here.

“Why, yes, it’s entirely possible for Zuckerberg to have gotten the idea to create Facebook from seeing a post on Facebook!”

It would mean that nature is to some extent untreated.

 

[PRmerger]

Well isn’t that interesting. I prefer face-to-face conversations rather than online ones, and they’ve taught me it’s best to try and avoid making assumptions about other people and what they think. Fascinating how our experiences shape us.

Rather than, eh?

I always find it so bemusing when folks (it’s usually fundamentalists and, curiously, atheists) who create these weird dichotomies.

They assert ONLYs and ALONEs where none are required.

What makes Catholicism so formidable is because it’s usually the Both/And that we embrace.

We have no need to say:
-the Bible Alone
-Faith Alone
-the King James version Alone
-Science Alone
-Reason Alone

We say, yes, AND!

So, there is no need to insert a “rather than” here. No one is insisting on a online discussion alone type of dogma here.

We are all capable of doing both/and. Online AND face to face dialogue are quite possible in the Catholic world!

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Rather than, eh?

I always find it so bemusing when folks (it’s usually fundamentalists and, curiously, atheists) who create these weird dichotomies.

They assert ONLYs and ALONEs where none are required.

What makes Catholicism so formidable is because it’s usually the Both/And that we embrace.

We have no need to say:
-the Bible Alone
-Faith Alone
-the King James version Alone
-Science Alone
-Reason Alone

We say, yes, AND!

So, there is no need to insert a “rather than” here. No one is insisting on a online discussion alone type of dogma here.

We are all capable of doing both/and. Online AND face to face dialogue are quite possible in the Catholic world!

Um, the phrase “rather than” can be used to express a preference, not just to lay out a true dichotomy. But I hope you’re feeling better after that.

 

[PRmerger]

It would mean that nature is to some extent untreated.

What the *what??? *

 

[PRmerger]

I prefer face-to-face conversations rather than online ones, and they’ve taught me it’s best to try and avoid making assumptions about other people and what they think. Fascinating how our experiences shape us.

Um, the phrase “rather than” can be used to express a preference, not just to lay out a true dichotomy. But I hope you’re feeling better after that.

I’m going to go out on a limb and make another assumption even though I’ve never met you: you’ve had less than a dozen “face-to-face” conversations about religion. At least, less than a dozen conversations of any significance.

EmIright?

As I believe you to be a person (man?) of integrity (another, er, assumption), if you say that you’ve actually had more than a dozen meaningful face-to-face conversations I will gladly retract the above.

But I’m pretty sure you haven’t had more than a handful of these types of face-to-face conversations, so…

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I’m going to go out on a limb and make another assumption even though I’ve never met you: you’ve had less than a dozen “face-to-face” conversations about religion. At least, less than a dozen conversations of any significance.

EmIright?

As I believe you to be a person (man?) of integrity (another, er, assumption), if you say that you’ve actually had more than a dozen meaningful face-to-face conversations I will gladly retract the above.

But I’m pretty sure you haven’t had more than a handful of these types of face-to-face conversations, so…

Your assumption is very incorrect.

 

[PRmerger]

Your assumption is very incorrect.

Please expound. I’d like a bit more detail, (but not too much) before I decide to retract.

Also, which assumption are you addressing as being wrong? That you’re a man? That you’re a person of integrity? Or that you’ve had less than a dozen meaningful conversations about religion face to face?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Please expound. I’d like a bit more detail, (but not too much) before I decide to retract.

Also, which assumption are you addressing? That you’re a man? That you’re a person of integrity? Or that you’ve had less than a dozen meaningful conversations about religion face to face?

That I’ve had less than a dozen meaningful conversations about religion face-to-face.

 

[PRmerger]

That I’ve had less than a dozen meaningful conversations about religion face-to-face.

So, some details, please. With JWs? Mormons? Church members trying to get you to come back? Religious cousin saying you’re going to hell?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

So, some details, please. With JWs? Mormons? Church members trying to get you to come back? Religious cousin saying you’re going to hell?

I have a brother and father who are ministers and an aunt in seminary; we’ve had more conversations with them about out religion than I can count.
I went to a small group, sort of like an Alpha course, if you’re familiar with it, at the church I was attending when I became an atheist several years ago. Lots of conversations there, and after that course was over the pastor and co-lead another small group where we read through a book about apologetics (I was openly an atheist through all of this).
Currently I live in a college town and have a lot of conversations with religious groups that set up tables on campus and hand out pamphlets and such. There are some Jehovah’s Witnesses that set up pretty regularly, and I’ve had some long chats with them. I’ve probably spent the most time with an older Calvinist gentleman who is out there pretty much whenever the weather is nice and he has time off. When the atheist club sets up their table I’ll usually hang out with them and talk with people who come up and ask questions.

 

[PRmerger]

I have a brother and father who are ministers and an aunt in seminary; we’ve had more conversations with them about out religion than I can count.
I went to a small group, sort of like an Alpha course, if you’re familiar with it, at the church I was attending when I became an atheist several years ago. Lots of conversations there, and after that course was over the pastor and co-lead another small group where we read through a book about apologetics (I was openly an atheist through all of this).
Currently I live in a college town and have a lot of conversations with religious groups that set up tables on campus and hand out pamphlets and such. There are some Jehovah’s Witnesses that set up pretty regularly, and I’ve had some long chats with them. I’ve probably spent the most time with an older Calvinist gentleman who is out there pretty much whenever the weather is nice and he has time off. When the atheist club sets up their table I’ll usually hang out with them and talk with people who come up and ask questions.

Fair enough.

I retract the above comment that you’ve not had very many face-to-face religious discussions.

Clearly, I was wrong in my assumption. :tiphat:

 

[PRmerger]

If you choose to ignore the rest of that paragraph, I can understand why you’d make the mistake of thinking that.

He has surveyed thousands of articles over the past few decades that talk about Jesus’ and the supposed events surrounding it. From there he has purported to try to establish what percentage of “experts” think that those events are historical vs not historical, and had taken what he says are the most agreed upon facts as the “minimal facts,” facts that even skeptics should be able to agree are at least historically true. From there, he argues that an actual resurrection is the best explanation of those facts.

And what are these minimal facts that even skeptics agree are historically true, and do you believe them to be historically true?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

And what are these minimal facts that even skeptics agree are historically true, and do you believe them to be historically true?

The list varies from four to over twenty. Here’s the list he used during an appearance on the radio program Unbelievable! a year or so ago (my thoughts on each in italics):

Minimal facts (90% or better acceptance by Habermas’ “experts”)

1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion (yes)
2. After his death, his disciples had experiences that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus (maybe; I have some doubts whether all or any had actual experiences)
   3.The disciples were transformed by their experiences and proclaimed his resurrection and were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection (maybe)
3. The proclamation of his resurrection was early (okay)
4. James was converted by a post-mortem experience (okay)
5. Paul was converted by a post-mortem experience (okay)

Extended facts (less than 90%, but still widely accepted):

1. Burial for Jesus in a private tomb (I doubt it)
2. The private tomb found empty (I doubt it)
3. The disciples despaired after Jesus was crucified (probably)
4. The proclamation of the resurrection started in Jerusalem (okay)
5. Changing the worship day from Saturday to Sunday (okay)

 

[PRmerger]

1. After his death, his disciples had experiences that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus (maybe; I have some doubts whether all or any had actual experiences)

What are you using as your source for these experiences and why do you doubt the veracity of these experiences?

3.The disciples were transformed by their experiences and proclaimed his resurrection and were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection (maybe)

You’re not sure? So you’re saying it’s possible that the historical accounts of the early Christians dying at the hands of the Romans rather than retract their testimony is not an actual event?

Burial for Jesus in a private tomb (I doubt it)

Why do you doubt this?

1. The private tomb found empty (I doubt it)

Who lied about this? And why?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

What are you using as your source for these experiences and why do you doubt the veracity of these experiences?

The Gospels would be the main source, and things like questionable authorship, historical implausibilities, and apparent myth making cause me to doubt.

You’re not sure? So you’re saying it’s possible that the historical accounts of the early Christians dying at the hands of the Romans rather than retract their testimony is not an actual event?

Yes, it’s definitely possible that the martyrdom accounts of the apostles are not actual events. Most of them come from the second century or later and there are contradictions among several of the accounts.

Why do you doubt this?

It seems implausible that Jesus would have died so quickly and his body removed so soon. I’m also not convinced that Joseph of Arimathea is a historical person.

Who lied about this? And why?

Mark, or whoever he got the story from. I can only guess at the motives.