The best reversal of an Atheist argument I have ever heard.

HonestJoe · Feb 22, 2016

1robin said:
1. The Atheist said what anyone that is familiar with debate or philosophy sees as a legitimate demand of a miraculous claim. He said a resurrection (Jesus) is an extraordinary event and requires extraordinary evidence. All of us would probably heartily agree with this seemingly absolute requirement.

Something of a side point but even if there were evidence that the man Jesus died and then lived again, that in itself wouldn’t be proof for the existence of God. I could come up with any number of equally valid explanations for such an event without requiring the existence of any deity (let alone the specific Biblical one). After all, there are several other resurrection or immortality myths and stories out there proposing quite different sources or causes.

Magic Man · Feb 22, 2016

1robin said:
Hello guys, many of you know me very well as we have debated everything under the sun, to the point I have over 12,000 debates. However I have decided that this is almost a waste of time (from God's point of view at this point) and decided to go to Biola and get my masters certificate in Apologetics (which is simply a word from the Greek - Apologia) which simply means to give a defense of. And to use all that I have learned through a several decades long passion for debate to train local evangelistic teams.

I don't watch William Lane Craig much anymore. He sticks to the same dozen arguments or so which have no refutation worth putting up with. However I happened to catch a new argument he made and anyone familiar with debate will appreciate the simple wisdom in his response.

1. The Atheist said what anyone that is familiar with debate or philosophy sees as a legitimate demand of a miraculous claim. He said a resurrection (Jesus) is an extraordinary event and requires extraordinary evidence. All of us would probably heartily agree with this seemingly absolute requirement.

a. My response would have been to show the evidence we have for the resurrection compared to any in ancient history is extraordinary. BTW that what countless lawyers and historians do say. However we are not quite in Craig's league.

2. Craig responded that in this case only two things were necessary to prove a resurrection of Christ occurred. No extraordinary evidence was required, two easy and mundane things were all that was necessary.

A. The ability of those responsible to know a person is actually dead. The Romans (at peril of their own lives) were experts at knowing when a person was dead. They even knew how to keep a person at the point of death, but not cross the line until they decided to. So as to exact maximum suffering. Those assigned to actual crucifixion were experts at knowing that a person had died (again at the peril of their own lives). They even ensured it whether they doubted it or not but thrusting a 4 inch spear through the heart, or breaking both legs.

B. The ability of people afterwards to know if a guy was alive or not. Only two candidates are known in accepted history to have lived through Roman crucifixion. A guy who was taken down as soon as put up (forget his name but it is easily google-ed), when the order was rescinded, and Jesus Christ being the only other well known possibility.

I do not offer this as proof of Christianity, I offer it as the wisdom God gives those on his side that makes a mockery of man's simplistic axioms and demands. I do not intend to defend every desperate argument dredged up to refute this. I simply offer it as a thing of philosophical excellence. Maybe you can find secondary faults in the argument as a whole but you must admire how that time honored demand traditional demand for extraordinary evidence was completely dismantled.

As I said I don't debate here much any longer, but only wanted this thing of philosophic beauty available to as many as I could. I will read any responses but make no promise to respond to them. I did not intend to start a debate over an un-debatable response. I have seen him use this three times and not one opponent contradicted it, refuted it, or showed that it was unsatisfactory in any way. They simply changed subject.

Hello to any of my old debate opponents, that might see this.

Probably a good thing you don't debate here anymore, if this is the way you debate. You have done nothing to "dismantle" any argument, and nothing here is "philosophical excellence". The fact remains the only evidence for Jesus's resurrection is the Bible. We have no way of verifying the accounts in there, and there is no other evidence anyone has ever found that those accounts are at all accurate.

outhouse · Feb 22, 2016

Shiranui117 said:
Except, the original ending of the Gospel of Mark DOES say EXPLICITLY that Jesus rose from the dead. GoM originally ended on verse 8. Verses 6-8...

He said to them, “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen! He is not here! Behold, the place where they laid him!
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you.’”
8 They went out* and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come upon them. They said nothing to anyone because they were afraid.

Correct.

But it is such a small part of the whole book. In context I'm talking about if this had really happened and a dead man rose from the dead the book would have gushed on and on about it.

As it is it barely makes notice of such a miraculous event. You did notice I did not say missing or did not have it. I did qualify it with "barely mentioned" Gospel writer Mark gives no description of the resurrected Jesus.

It wasn't that important.

It was to later communities whom redacted it differently depending on their belief by the beginning of the second century.

For me it shows the multiple and diverse beliefs of these early people, and possible an evolution of a spiritual resurrection to a physical one, for the sole purpose of competing with the Emperors divinity. [My guess]

outhouse · Feb 22, 2016

Magic Man said:
Probably a good thing you don't debate here anymore, if this is the way you debate.

I dont agree, even though Its been his MO since he has been here.

But I think he should stay here and hang out with us as long as he wishes, while my views differ from his and it is frustrating trying get through to him on some undisputed topics.

He is welcome here in my book. This website can offer enough inspiration and knowledge to help one acquire quite the biblical education. The only difference is closed minds do take much longer.

Yerda · Feb 22, 2016

1robin said:
Hello to any of my old debate opponents, that might see this.

Hello. I'm not sure we ever debated, but it is likely given how contrary I tend to be.

I don't find the argument in the OP particularly compelling and I can go into details if you like but I only wish to say right now that it was worth while posting it and to ignore the less than charitable responses you've received.

Thanks and take care.

1robin · Feb 22, 2016

Jaiket said:
Hello. I'm not sure we ever debated, but it is likely given how contrary I tend to be.

I don't find the argument in the OP particularly compelling and I can go into details if you like but I only wish to say right now that it was worth while posting it and to ignore the less than charitable responses you've received.

Thanks and take care.

Thanks for the sentiments. Apparently some non theist have such an emotional stake they can't help but refute what was not even an argument but the genius of the Christian pointing something so strong I would have felt I have to provide extra ordinary evidence myself. However the brilliance of the illegitimately of what atheist think the burden of that claim was apparently missed in the rabid desire to miss the elegance in the Christians response.

outhouse · Feb 22, 2016

1robin said:
Thanks for the sentiments. Apparently some non theist have such an emotional stake they can't help but refute what was not even an argument but the genius of the Christian pointing something so strong I would have felt I have to provide extra ordinary evidence myself. However the brilliance of the illegitimately of what atheist think the burden of that claim was apparently missed in the rabid desire to miss the elegance in the Christians response.

Narcissist much?

1robin · Feb 23, 2016

fantome profane said:
Begging the question.

No that is a well established fact of ancient texts and was a secondary point that was not necessary for my main contention to be a brilliant realization or an atheist canard in that case.Apparently some non theists have such an emotional stake they can't help but refute what was not even an argument but the genius of the Christian pointing something so strong I would have felt I have to provide extra ordinary evidence myself. However the brilliance of the illegitimately of what atheist think the burden of that claim was apparently missed in the rabid desire to miss the elegance in the Christians response. Its a shame to let presupposed world views cause you to miss philosophical elegance.

outhouse · Feb 23, 2016

1robin said:
No that is a well established fact of ancient texts and was a secondary point that was not necessary for my main contention to be a brilliant realization or an atheist canard in that case.Apparently some non theists have such an emotional stake they can't help but refute what was not even an argument but the genius of the Christian pointing something so strong I would have felt I have to provide extra ordinary evidence myself. However the brilliance of the illegitimately of what atheist think the burden of that claim was apparently missed in the rabid desire to miss the elegance in the Christians response. Its a shame to let presupposed world views cause you to miss philosophical elegance.

Narcissist much using word salad?

ImmortalFlame · Feb 23, 2016

1robin said:
No that is a well established fact of ancient texts and was a secondary point that was not necessary for my main contention to be a brilliant realization or an atheist canard in that case.Apparently some non theists have such an emotional stake they can't help but refute what was not even an argument but the genius of the Christian pointing something so strong I would have felt I have to provide extra ordinary evidence myself. However the brilliance of the illegitimately of what atheist think the burden of that claim was apparently missed in the rabid desire to miss the elegance in the Christians response. Its a shame to let presupposed world views cause you to miss philosophical elegance.

Any argument is perfect if you ignore the obvious flaws.

Magic Man · Feb 29, 2016

1robin said:
Thanks for the sentiments. Apparently some non theist have such an emotional stake they can't help but refute what was not even an argument but the genius of the Christian pointing something so strong I would have felt I have to provide extra ordinary evidence myself.

An emotional stake? Nah. A desire to call out BS? Yes. And yet again, there's nothing genius about saying "The Bible says so, so it's true".

`mud · Mar 1, 2016

And the trumpets will blare at the coming !
~
'mud

Kielbasa · Mar 22, 2016

Serenity Now · Mar 23, 2016

Magic Man said:
Probably a good thing you don't debate here anymore, if this is the way you debate. You have done nothing to "dismantle" any argument, and nothing here is "philosophical excellence". The fact remains the only evidence for Jesus's resurrection is the Bible. We have no way of verifying the accounts in there, and there is no other evidence anyone has ever found that those accounts are at all accurate.

We know countless people including 10 of the original disciples all gave their lives on the belief of his resurrection and they would have known. Pretty sure those guys wouldn't have sacrificed themselves for something they would know was a lie.

McBell · Mar 24, 2016

Serenity Now said:
We know countless people including 10 of the original disciples all gave their lives on the belief of his resurrection and they would have known. Pretty sure those guys wouldn't have sacrificed themselves for something they would know was a lie.

That settles it then.
I mean if YOU are PRETTY SURE....

Shadow Wolf · Mar 24, 2016

Serenity Now said:
We know countless people including 10 of the original disciples all gave their lives on the belief of his resurrection and they would have known. Pretty sure those guys wouldn't have sacrificed themselves for something they would know was a lie.

I know a guy who went to jail because he broke into a home because he literally believed it was his duty to pee on a bomb to disarm it.

ImmortalFlame · Mar 24, 2016

Serenity Now said:
We know countless people including 10 of the original disciples all gave their lives on the belief of his resurrection and they would have known. Pretty sure those guys wouldn't have sacrificed themselves for something they would know was a lie.

They probably didn't. They may have just been wrong.

fantome profane · Mar 24, 2016

Serenity Now said:
We know countless people including 10 of the original disciples all gave their lives on the belief of his resurrection and they would have known. Pretty sure those guys wouldn't have sacrificed themselves for something they would know was a lie.

If you actually research this you will find that most of these stories about the apostles deaths are legends invented in the middle ages. Not reliable historical accounts.

Serenity Now · Mar 24, 2016

Mestemia said:
That settles it then.
I mean if YOU are PRETTY SURE....

I need to learn the sarcastic font rules...newbie.

Serenity Now · Mar 24, 2016

fantome profane said:
If you actually research this you will find that most of these stories about the apostles deaths are legends invented in the middle ages. Not reliable historical accounts.

Considering it was 2,000 years ago I'm not sure what we would qualify as reliable historical records that would satisfy you and I don't really mean that in a snarky way.

The truth is I've heard atheist argue against just about every biblical account based on the exact kind of statement with the caveat that the Romans and Egyptians kept very detailed records. It doesn't matter that we are finding important things all the time that were not recorded (King Tut being an example) but the Church's records are always held in suspect to the skeptics even though the Catholic Church is the oldest known organization still in existence. Scholars from all over the world rely on the records of the Catholic Church because many times they are the oldest and most reliable available. So many secular governments sought to eradicate or change history to their liking and most of the time they were pretty successful in doing so.

The best reversal of an Atheist argument I have ever heard.

Well-Known Member

Reaper of Conversation

Atheistically

Atheistically

Veteran Member

Christian/Baptist

Atheistically

Christian/Baptist

Atheistically

Woke gremlin

Reaper of Conversation

Just old

Lackey

Member

Resident Sourpuss

Certified People sTabber

Woke gremlin

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Member

Member