Flying Spaghetti monster

[Pete_1]

Firstly I should say that I am a Catholic however I have been having trouble with this question:

Why should someone believe Jesus rose from the grave? (Please do not give reasons such as the disciples held that what they saw was true even during martyrdom)

How does this differ from the reason that one should not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Richard Dawking’s invention) or invisible unicorns?

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Firstly I should say that I am a Catholic however I have been having trouble with this question:

Why should someone believe Jesus rose from the grave? (Please do not give reasons such as the disciples held that what they saw was true even during martyrdom)

How does this differ from the reason that one should not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Richard Dawking’s invention) or invisible unicorns?

Because the 10 eyewitnesses to said event (11 if you include Paul) were willing to suffer horrible and painful deaths rather than go back on what they saw. See any eyewitnesses to the FSM being brutally martyred? No? That’s because it doesn’t exist, no one ever was an FSM, and anyone who lied and claimed that they did probably wouldn’t be willing to die for that lie when he knows it’s not true.

 

[Pete_1]

(Please do not give reasons such as the disciples held that what they saw was true even during martyrdom)

 

[cfrancis]

Firstly I should say that I am a Catholic however I have been having trouble with this question:

Why should someone believe Jesus rose from the grave? (Please do not give reasons such as the disciples held that what they saw was true even during martyrdom)

Fair enough.
Why should I beleive you posed this question?

Do you believe Dawkings wrote his book?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Here is my take.

Either Jesus rose from the dead. . .or He didn’t.

If He did, then this action of rising would not suddenly cease to exist even if nobody ‘believed it’, right? I mean, an action of ‘rising from the dead’ either **really took place **or it really **didn’**t–there is no ‘middle ground’. And **if **it took place, it took place and no amount of bleating "it can’t happen’ would change the fact that it did happen.

So. . . to claim that one doesn’t ‘have to believe’ because the action of rising from the dead is as ‘mythical’ as invisible unicorns or as ‘fantastic’ as the FSM is an attempt by Mr. Dawkins to take an event and to present it as, **undoubtedly false. **To take the position not only that there was no miracle then, there never is or could be a ‘miracle’.

IOW, Mr. Dawkins has already decided (for himself) not to believe. Now, the problem is that Mr. Dawkins has not decided this based on any **reason **other than he ‘thinks’ the event is ‘false’. So even though there are witnesses, he discounts them as deluded.

But—he forgets to consider that they could be absolutely correct. To Mr. Dawkins, rising from the dead is impossible, so anybody who claims to have seen it is deluded. But if somebody DID rise from the dead, it would not ‘matter’ that people ‘claim’ it isn’t possible, would it? The event would occur despite a person’s ‘belief’ it could not occur.

So if things (even ‘impossible’ ones) exist or happen, they do so whether Mr. Dawkins finds them ‘impossible to believe’ or not.

 

[Shannon9791]

By adding this statement you have taken away any answer anyone could give you. No one in this forum was there, so we have to rely on the accounts of those who were willing to die for saying that.
As far as the Flying Spaghetti Monster goes, I think it’s quite funny that people have espoused themselves to it.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Why should someone believe Jesus rose from the grave? (Please do not give reasons such as the disciples held that what they saw was true even during martyrdom)

Here is an interesting list from the National Catholic Register listing 10 REASONS. For example:

1. Transformation of Saul. St. Paul went from persecutor to believer after seeing Christ alive.

(Although a couple of the reasons reference the early martyrs.)

How does this differ from the reason that one should not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Richard Dawking’s invention) or invisible unicorns?

Because 1)there is no internal consistency and 2)those are proposed as jokes, or a rhetorical device, or in ironic fashion – they are not intended to be believed.

By internal consistency I mean that there a various pieces of evidence which are all consistent with each other. I feel that one strong piece is that Christ himself said He would rise from the dead. And Christ is eminently believable. The man described in the gospels has integrity, moral goodness, genius, but also surprising and challenging teaching. It is practically impossible to artificially construct a person like that – there is the imprint of reality to everything that He was purported to say and do. Since this person also said He would rise from the dead, either 1)He himself was mistaken, 2) He misled, or 3) He never said it. But 1 and 2 can be rejected because of the lack of consistency with who He otherwise is, and number 3 can be rejected because of all the other evidence that supports that He said it.

What do you think?
VC

 

[Wolseley]

You’ve been badly misled about Dawkins. He doesn’t exist, and never did. Dawkins is the creation of a cabal of university evolutionists who use this mythical “persona” to further their academic ideas. “Richard Dawkins” is a fable. There is no Richard Dawkins—he’s a fairy tale.

 

[WindyHair]

By adding this statement you have taken away any answer anyone could give you. No one in this forum was there, so we have to rely on the accounts of those who were willing to die for saying that.
As far as the Flying Spaghetti Monster goes, I think it’s quite funny that people have espoused themselves to it.

sorry but u and ambrose have the weakest argument.
just because people are willing to die for their OPINIONS,
does not make it true.

right now, that’s happening everday in the middle east and africa.

try again.

 

[Pete_1]

You’ve been badly misled about Dawkins. He doesn’t exist, and never did. Dawkins is the creation of a cabal of university evolutionists who use this mythical “persona” to further their academic ideas. “Richard Dawkins” is a fable. There is no Richard Dawkins—he’s a fairy tale.

I must assume that reason is capable of knowing the truth in order to make sense of the world. I must also assume I am not constantly hallucinating in order to make sense of the world.

Therefore it is only rational to assume Richard Dawkins exists. As I have seen his body and heard him speak.

 

[Pete_1]

By adding this statement you have taken away any answer anyone could give you. No one in this forum was there, so we have to rely on the accounts of those who were willing to die for saying that.
As far as the Flying Spaghetti Monster goes, I think it’s quite funny that people have espoused themselves to it.

Just because someone dies for something it does not make it true.

 

[cfrancis]

I must assume that reason is capable of knowing the truth in order to make sense of the world. I must also assume I am not constantly hallucinating in order to make sense of the world.

Therefore it is only rational to assume Richard Dawkins exists. As I have seen his and heard him speak.

Forget “existence.”
You asked if a certain action took place, the Resurrection, the assumption being the eye-witness accounts are meaningless, and you have seen no “proof” of the event.

Did Dawkins write the book that bears his name?
We can excuse any eyewitness accounts of him writing - they can be fraudulent/biased.
Have you any proof he worte the book?

On edit: you stated “As I have seen his body and heard him speak.”
I would then ask: how do you what you saw is Richard Dawkins? Have you seen proof that the individual you saw/heard is in fact Richard Dawkins?
I would think we need DNA and other such evidence.

 

[Pete_1]

Fair enough.
Why should I beleive you posed this question?

Do you believe Dawkings wrote his book?

I must assume reason is capable of knowing the truth in order to give life meaning.

Therefore it is rational based on the above assuption to believe I posed this question as I witnessed myself doing it.

It is also rational to assume Dawkings wrote the book, as I have seen him speak about it.

 

[Pete_1]

Forget “existence.”
You asked if a certain action took place, the Resurrection, the assumption being the eye-witness accounts are meaningless, and you have seen no “proof” of the event.

Did Dawkins write the book that bears his name?
We can excuse any eyewitness accounts of him writing - they can be fraudulent/biased.
Have you any proof he worte the book?

I am not saying it is impossible but it is very likely that Dawkins wrote the book, based on the assumption that reason gives correct answers and the assumption of humanities inability to cover up huge conspiracies

and the assumption of humanities inability to cover up huge conspiracies

Please don’t say that because of this religion must be true because religion contains faith that does not contradict reason whereas human conspiracies do (contradict reason)

 

[cfrancis]

I must assume reason is capable of knowing the truth in order to give life meaning.

Therefore it is rational based on the above assuption to believe I posed this question as I witnessed myself doing it.

It is also rational to assume Dawkings wrote the book, as I have seen him speak about it.

I didn’t witness you posting the question, and your eyewitness account means nothing to me - you could be lying. You may not even be who you say you are.

And your evidence re: Dawkins and his book is meaningless; just because you saw someone claiming to be Dawkins speaking on a book does not count as proof the this person - who may or may not be Dawkins - wrote a book.

To be consistent with your initial post, we need irrefutable evidence, right?

 

[cfrancis]

I am not saying it is impossible but it is very likely that Dawkins wrote the book, based on the assumption that reason gives correct answers and the assumption of humanities inability to cover up huge conspiracies

“Very likely” doesn’t settle the matter or count as proof. It is, rationally, equally as likely the opposite is true.

Where is the evidence, the proof?

Now, if you want me accept your hypothesis - that’s all it is - the “assumption of humanities inability to cover up huge conspiracies” you must grant that I can only do so on faith. You have no way to prove it, so I must accept, on faith, your assumption.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi Pete;

If I can ask, what is the reason for disallowing the witness of those who saw the risen Jesus and suffered martyrdom rather than recant their witness?

I would agree that just because one person saw something that does not necessarily make that person’s conclusion the truth. And it may also be the case that a person is deluded into believing what they really want to believe. Yet, what is striking about the tesimony of the Apostles is that ALL of them suffered martyrdom without betraying their message that Christ rose from the dead. This - to my understanding - enhances their credibility as witnesses to an interaction with a person they all knew to be Jesus - after many many people witnessed His death.

To discount these witnesses without some argument other than “people can be mistaken” is, to me, the sign of a person who has already made up their mind not to believe… contrary to the testimony of the witnesses.

So, I’m just curious to know what rationale was give to you by the person who dismisses these witnesses to the event in question. It may give me some insight on how to further respond to your question.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Pete_1]

I didn’t witness you posting the question, and your eyewitness account means nothing to me - you could be lying. You may not even be who you say you are.

And your evidence re: Dawkins and his book is meaningless; just because you saw someone claiming to be Dawkins speaking on a book does not count as proof the this person - who may or may not be Dawkins - wrote a book.

To be consistent with your initial post, we need irrefutable evidence, right?

What I am asking is, why faith?

In regards to Richard Dawkings writing the book their is reasonable evidence to suggest that Dawkings wrote the book.

If reason can attain truth and the senses give pictures representative of reality(I believe this) then it is likely that Dawkings did write the book any assertion to the contrary goes against the wealth of evidence that is present e.g sense evidence and evidence from reason.

 

[theistgal]

You might want to consider the fact that the eyewitnesses didn’t just sit around and wait till anyone who might contradict their story died before speaking out; there is plenty of evidence that they spoke out and, before their martyrdom, convinced a lot of other people of the truth of their “wild story”.

But ultimately, if you decide you can’t believe it based on second-hand evidence, you’ll either have to accept the evidence as presented by someone whose opinion you trust in other matters - or, as many of us here have done, go through a bout of atheism.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it helps to clear out all the brush and plant some fresh seeds.

 

[notacat]

Why should someone believe Jesus rose from the grave?

Pete, do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?