Flying Spaghetti monster

[OnlyAmbrose]

Because of the existence of brainwashed cults that believe their leader is God.

Major difference there. The apostles, being the eyewitnesses, would have known for certain weather or not what they were saying was true, and 11 out of 11 suffered brutal deaths rather than say it wasn’t. That’s different from, say, an Islamic terrorist who blows himself up in a crowded marketplace - he’s not an eyewitness and therefore does not know for certain that what he believes is true (or not). That the apostles did sets them apart from other “cultists” that die for their beliefs de fide.

 

[rpp]

What about Islam? And all the other religions that have undergone persecution?

Mohamed performed no miracles. He was a bandit and a warlord. He was illiterate and a pedophile. Islam is as much a political movement and system as it is a religion. Islam spread by the sword, violence and forced conversions. Christianity spread by changing people’s hearts.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

(afterthought)

You’d think that if the resurrection was a lie made up by the disciples, at least ONE of them would have recanted and spilled the beans. But none of them did. This is different from, say, the Mormon witnesses to the golden plates, 4 out of 7 of whom (if I remember right) eventually left Mormonism.

 

[Pete_1]

Islam is as much a political movement and system as it is a religion. Islam spread by the sword, violence and forced conversions. Christianity spread by changing people’s hearts.

Got any proof that Islam or every other religion for that matter had no eyewitness martyrs to miracles?

 

[Pete_1]

(afterthought)

You’d think that if the resurrection was a lie made up by the disciples, at least ONE of them would have recanted and spilled the beans. But none of them did. This is different from, say, the Mormon witnesses to the golden plates, 4 out of 7 of whom (if I remember right) eventually left Mormonism.

But 3 stayed? suppose 7 stayed would that make it true? Isn’t 3 witnesses enough?

 

[davidv]

But why accept faith? You are using faith as an example of why one should accept faith.

Because there is no “proof”.

 

[CentralFLJames]

But 3 stayed? suppose 7 stayed would that make it true? Isn’t 3 witnesses enough?

Not when the other evidence contradicts as it does in the Book of Mormon containing a literal copy of the KJV complete with its original early translation and grammatical errors.

Some things are fraudulent on the face of the matter.

James

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

But 3 stayed? suppose 7 stayed would that make it true? Isn’t 3 witnesses enough?

To my knowledge, none of the 7 were martyred. Not the case in the Christian eyewitnesses. Furthermore, most of what they claimed contradicts historical knowledge. Not the case with the Christian eyewitnesses.

12 eyewitnesses, 11 are martyred, 1 is not (the one who stayed faithful to Jesus during the crucifixion), NONE go back on what they say.

There is no other religion in the world like that. Certainly not the flying spaghetti monster.

If you don’t see that as a valid argument then I don’t know what other answer you could possibly be looking for.

 

[rpp]

Got any proof that Islam or every other religion for that matter had no eyewitness martyrs to miracles?

Islam itself does not claim that Mohamed performed any miracles. My source is the Koran and the teachings of Islam. In fact, only Christianity teaches that its founder performed numerous miracles. No other religion teaches this. So it is not a matter of there being a lack of eyewitnesses, it is they do not claim that miracles were performed. That is one of the things that sets Christianity apart.

 

[CentralFLJames]

(afterthought)

You’d think that if the resurrection was a lie made up by the disciples, at least ONE of them would have recanted and spilled the beans. But none of them did. This is different from, say, the Mormon witnesses to the golden plates, 4 out of 7 of whom (if I remember right) eventually left Mormonism.

This is one of the strongest facts. We can assume that the corrupt Herod or the corrupt Sanhedrin would have attempted to bribe another disciple to recant their story after the resurrection in the face of the huge upset this had on the entire city and early conversions. In fact the precedent was already set with Judas and the 30 pieces of silver episode. Therefore, the conviction of the apostles in the face of this level of Jewish corruption and them all going to their death save John (who was tortured in boiling oil for a period of time) and the lack of a recantation is just about absolute proof that the accounts are true. The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 just a short time after the Sanhedrin murdered the Apostle James by throwing him off the parapet-tower of the Temple for his refusal to recant during a mock trial and that tie-in with Jesus’ prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem is further continuity of the credibility of the entire Jesus account since this great prophecy comes true.

This stuff is way to integrated and perfect of a story with cross-collaborating accounts by those hostile to Christians to have been fabricated.

James

 

[Chesster]

Islam itself does not claim that Mohamed performed any miracles. My source is the Koran and the teachings of Islam. In fact, only Christianity teaches that its founder performed numerous miracles. No other religion teaches this. So it is not a matter of there being a lack of eyewitnesses, it is they do not claim that miracles were performed. That is one of the things that sets Christianity apart.

I thought that Islam does claim that Mohamed split the moon in half.

 

[rpp]

I thought that Islam does claim that Mohamed split the moon in half.

It was a partial lunar eclipse.

 

[Chipper]

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?

Hi Pete.

I want to get back to your original question, before this thread goes off into Islam.

First of all it is logically impossible to prove non-existence. It can’t be done. Noone here can prove that the Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist. Aside from the fact that we don’t even have a clear definition of what a SPM is. Since proving nonexistence is logically impossible let me take another look at your question.

Your original question is “why should one believe”. My question to you is “Why not believe?”

 

[Pete_1]

only Christianity teaches that its founder performed numerous miracles. No other religion teaches this. So it is not a matter of there being a lack of eyewitnesses, it is they do not claim that miracles were performed. That is one of the things that sets Christianity apart.

These are certainly bold claims do you have any sources?

 

[Pete_1]

Hi Pete.

Your original question is “why should one believe”. My question to you is “Why not believe?”

Because it seems absurd to believe in invisible unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters when there is no evidence.

 

[rpp]

These are certainly bold claims do you have any sources?

Look to the teachings of other religions. It is not my claim, it is their teaching.

If you want to talk about other religions, I suggest you learn what you are talking about first.

 

[Chipper]

Because it seems absurd to believe in invisible unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters when their is no evidence.

I am not talking about belief in spaghetti monsters or unicorns, I am talking about the Resurection of Jesus. Isn’t that what your post was about?

Also as absurd as some things seem, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. (Although I can’t find any reason to "Want to Believe in SPM’s or Unicorns).

 

[cfrancis]

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.

I’m trying to apply the standard of proof you require for Christ’s resurrection to this issue of Dawkins’ book.

What you call “reasonable evidence” or “wealth of evidence” appears to be the same as exists for the resurrection.

Therefore, we can rule out eyewitnesses.
We can rule out anyone - Dawkins himself included - who speaks about the book or about him writing the book.

We need some evidence, some proof, that provides iron-clad proof that Dawkins himself wrote the book.

It also appears you place your faith in reason - or, more precisely, what fits your standard for reason.

Utlimately, faith plays into the equation.

 

[Pete_1]

I’m trying to apply the standard of proof you require for Christ’s resurrection to this issue of Dawkins’ book.

Ultimately, faith plays into the equation.

 

[juhothenero]

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?

Pete, you are using a double standard here. You try to be skeptic but you don’t know what is a real skeptic, just like Dawkins, he appears smart in fact there is too many logical errors in his so called “philosophy” i think no school of philosophy would never even suggest reading him.

You say provide me evidence but not this one since I don’t like it or something like that. Then the other person here says the same thing to you about Dawkins and you say well is just reasonable that he exists… Do you see the double standard? You are not even close to be a real skeptic, i think any philosophy class would laugh at this “logic”. You either build a complete system or don’t try to build one. The same goes for Dawkins.

There has been studies on how fast myths develop, takes about two generations or more every time. Strange thing is, Christians took about 40 days to develop a huge “myth”, an unbelievable one for those days for Jews (don’t think of other faiths at the time, they don’t matter for this, they did not learn them in 40 days and decide those things). These 40 days are from Jesus dead till the first pentecostal. That is really all evidence we need.