Why I CANNOT Believe in The Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

What reasons are there to support this claim?

History.

 

[whosetosay...]

None of it seems to be true.

And the whole point of Jesus being sacrificed for the sins of mankind is to get the believer's butt of of eternal hell. Christians are promised eternal life for some reason, and one reason is because death is scary, and Christianity promises eternal life in heaven. That is manipulative, and to my mind immoral. This is what happens when a theology takes itself too seriously, and takes the concepts literally.

If, death is extinction of life why would anyone fear death? As for life itself, how do you explain the medium in the bible and those of today? Theology exists because? What is theology without God and without man?
The bible holds key truths apparently and these key truths are happening around you now and has done since before and then more so after Christ. I see an opinion and you are entitled to that. But without God what type of world would we have had. Not the one we have now.

Life is short, don't waste time in church gambling these ideas are true.

Why can they not be true without it being a gamble,, Why would someone like Christ, die if it wasn't true? Why when he was known for facing those who questioned him, for telling the truth? Could he really promise the thief he would be in paradise that day? No one does anything like that, unless he is sure.

Exactly, good point, this is why I use my intellect and examine religious ideas objectively. Given the lack any evidence I reject them, so I'm not wasting time investing my life in them.

Let us reason.... what evidence would you want? If you cannot state the evidence for your own personal choice then how can you say you are wasting your time?

Now you might say I'm investing time debating religion. Yes, it's a hobby and challenges my brain. It reminds me that I am my own moral arbiter and must take my moral judgments seriously and not fall into social norms.

You are in the social norms simply being an atheist debating religion? How can you brain be challenged by something you cannot satisfactorily disprove to yourself or others? You are an atheist and you can challenge nothing as you cannot disprove anything. Hard for you to take but let us not beat about the bush. The Chicken or the Egg which came first? We know the bible puts God creating adults.

 

[F1fan]

If, death is extinction of life why would anyone fear death?

Because we assign meaning to the conscious experience of life and we fear losing it. This likely due to our highly active fight or flight fear mechanism.

As for life itself, how do you explain the medium in the bible and those of today?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Theology exists because?

Humans evolved abstract thinking and developed social systems that rely heavily on meaning. Plus we ask questions and desire answers, even wrong answers are satisfying as a mans to offset fear and uncertainty.

What is theology without God and without man?

The same thing as The Hobbit without hobbits.

The bible holds key truths apparently and these key truths are happening around you now and has done since before and then more so after Christ.

And that's because the many sects of Christianity have decided that the bible has truths, and many disagree with each other.

I see an opinion and you are entitled to that. But without God what type of world would we have had. Not the one we have now.

I'm not convinced any of the many thousands of gods in human history exist. If human civilization evolved without religious belief it would probably exist in some form, and perhaps more advanced than today. War would still occur because humans wage war over resources like any other animal and the reasons would be justified whether it was for the sake of a god or the sake of the nation. Religions come out of primitive people looking for authority and meaning.

Why can they not be true without it being a gamble,, Why would someone like Christ, die if it wasn't true? Why when he was known for facing those who questioned him, for telling the truth? Could he really promise the thief he would be in paradise that day? No one does anything like that, unless he is sure.

Even if the story is true the whole background of creation, the Fall, the flood, sin, and the need for a blood sacrifice are absurd. There's nothing sensible, perfect, or well thought out about any of this theology. Christians would be better off treating all these concepts as symbolic instead of literal.

Let us reason.... what evidence would you want? If you cannot state the evidence for your own personal choice then how can you say you are wasting your time?

I want evidence that available to ordinary senses or instruments. That evidence requires no special interpretation or assumptions that are contrary to what we understand of reality. It's that simple. Theists can;t meet this basic standard. Can you? Be the first.

You are in the social norms simply being an atheist debating religion?

It's getting more and more normal, yes. The number of non-theists is growing.

How can you brain be challenged by something you cannot satisfactorily disprove to yourself or others? You are an atheist and you can challenge nothing as you cannot disprove anything. Hard for you to take but let us not beat about the bush.

Those who use the logical default understand they don't have to disprove the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Bigfoot, God, the power of crystals, etc. We have the advantage of not being convinced that those who claim any of these things exist and wait for claimants to demonstrate any of them are true outside human imagination.

The Chicken or the Egg which came first? We know the bible puts God creating adults.

Why assume the Bible is correct when facts and theories explain that humans evolved from more primitive hominids?

 

[F1fan]

So a laboratory analysis report of a claimed piece of polar bear food would be called extraordinary evidence, but the laboratory analysis report of a claimed carcass of a polar bear in the north pole would be called ordinary evidence (even though both laboratory reports are exactly the same)?

It's extraordinary given the effort and expense required just to prove what a guy ate for lunch. Polar bear meat is a rather extraordinary claim. Of course it's not as extraordinary as someone claiming a god exists since we know polar bears actually exist and it's possible someone did eat some for lunch.

 

[alypius]

It's extraordinary given the effort and expense required just to prove what a guy ate for lunch. Polar bear meat is a rather extraordinary claim. Of course it's not as extraordinary as someone claiming a god exists since we know polar bears actually exist and it's possible someone did eat some for lunch.

So does evidence simply called 'extraordinary evidence' when it is associated with a claim that is called extraordinary (even though the actual evidence is just the same as in ordinary claims)?

 

[alypius]

History.

Given that history implies documents, which documents are you referring to?

 

[alypius]

Have you read the Gospels? It is clear that they are embellished. At least all of those after Mark. If they were not they would all agree with each other.

So could Mark possibly be non-embellished?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given that history implies documents, which documents are you referring to?

I don't think you do history. Wiki is often a good starting point:

List of Gospels - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

So could Mark possibly be non-embellished?

It is dubious. The Empty Tomb story may have been made up out of whole cloth.

 

[F1fan]

So does evidence simply called 'extraordinary evidence' when it is associated with a claim that is called extraordinary (even though the actual evidence is just the same as in ordinary claims)?

Do you consider the claim "I ate polar bear for lunch" to be an ordinary claim? I used that as a mildly extraordinary claim, as it could be true, but so far outside of probability that it is extraordinary. And ordinary claim is "I ate a ham sandwich for lunch." Do you follow here? Extraordinary claims are by definition outside the ordinary. Being outside the ordinary and mundane such a claim requires more compelling evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you consider the claim "I ate polar bear for lunch" to be an ordinary claim? I used that as a mildly extraordinary claim, as it could be true, but so far outside of probability that it is extraordinary. And ordinary claim is "I ate a ham sandwich for lunch." Do you follow here? Extraordinary claims are by definition outside the ordinary. Being outside the ordinary and mundane such a claim requires more compelling evidence.

To expand on this:

Bread crumbs and some unidentified meat shreds are good evidence for eating a ham sandwich. They are not very good evidence for a polar bear sandwich.

 

[whosetosay...]

Because we assign meaning to the conscious experience of life and we fear losing it. This likely due to our highly active fight or flight fear mechanism.

You can not make a statement as a blanket to cover all.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Surely you are not pretending that modern day mediums exist who contact the dead. The statement was clear in itself. What about them if death is the end for you and nothing after? The bible show Saul losing his Kingdom when got a medium to contact the dead prophet. The supernatural as atheists would call it, exists. Explain it away.

Humans evolved abstract thinking and developed social systems that rely heavily on meaning. Plus we ask questions and desire answers, even wrong answers are satisfying as a mans to offset fear and uncertainty.

So how did God figure in the above? No matter where you go, even tribes only discovered from travel believe in higher power.

The same thing as The Hobbit without hobbits.

But it isn't the same at all. Hobbits exist only in a book of fiction.Unless you read the book you know nothing about them. But God existed from the beginning with mankind and the beliefs are widely held without an author.

And that's because the many sects of Christianity have decided that the bible has truths, and many disagree with each other.

The Jews diagreed with each other. Sadducees and Pharisees held different beliefs but they knew the Messiah would bring the final word of God. Seems that the truth came out with Jesus and central truths the tenets of the faith of who Christ is the Son of God and his death and resurrection do not change. God knows the believers are now in Spirit and Truth.

I'm not convinced any of the many thousands of gods in human history exist. If human civilization evolved without religious belief it would probably exist in some form, and perhaps more advanced than today. War would still occur because humans wage war over resources like any other animal and the reasons would be justified whether it was for the sake of a god or the sake of the nation. Religions come out of primitive people looking for authority and meaning.

Throw away comment which you can neither justify or prove. In the great scheme of things intelligent people who seek by reason and truth believe in God. But we cannot really discuss idols or gods which are not really putting any input in this world.

Even if the story is true the whole background of creation, the Fall, the flood, sin, and the need for a blood sacrifice are absurd. There's nothing sensible, perfect, or well thought out about any of this theology. Christians would be better off treating all these concepts as symbolic instead of literal.

Obviously not well read about the historical events in the bible. Even the flood was symbolic of life after death and the one dying for the many as a true sacrifice Jesus made the difference no other religion did. Eventually like some Jews already they will see that the Gentiles/Christians have been added to the fold. The very first Christians were all Jews. Today the Jews all over the world must be descendants of Judah and Benjamin tribes,

I want evidence that available to ordinary senses or instruments. That evidence requires no special interpretation or assumptions that are contrary to what we understand of reality. It's that simple. Theists can;t meet this basic standard. Can you? Be the first.

How would you relate the above to a blind and deaf person? Christ raised the dead. Made the blind to see; the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak, He cured the leper and the lame. You can do these things too. The real test is have you tried to believe and do you want to believe if true? Many people remain in these disabilities because people like yourself who could have chose to look for truth and ask God to show you, have not done so. So you have a choice that choice can make a difference. So unless you know and can ask God for your own proof personally with a trusting and truthful heart how do you hope to get your proof? It is down to you just to ask. Seek the Kingdom and ask God.

It's getting more and more normal, yes. The number of non-theists is growing.

A great falling away from truth. But the believer and those who are chosen will still succeed where you fail. Being an atheist is choice and you can see from above that those who followed Christ did what he did. Even those who never knew him did miracles in his name. You can make a difference by searching for the truth,. Honest Thomas doubted and said what he needed to believe. We see Christ met that need. Because Thomas like yourself could not believe Christ had risen without seeing him and when he did he no longer doubted. But you have no yet decided what you need. Thomas did not want proof for others, he needed for himself. We all need to know what proof we need.

Those who use the logical default understand they don't have to disprove the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Bigfoot, God, the power of crystals, etc. We have the advantage of not being convinced that those who claim any of these things exist and wait for claimants to demonstrate any of them are true outside human imagination.

The above with the exception of God has not existed since the beginning of time. As far as I am aware there is only one God mentioned above. God exists outside imagination it is accepted he has been known wherever mankind lives and believed in. The others have not been believed or accepted all over the world since time began by all mankind. Logic when it play's it's part tell us that we cannot use the old chestnut above it makes not sense and has no comparison when looking the belief of God with all mankind.

Why assume the Bible is correct when facts and theories explain that humans evolved from more primitive hominids?

The very first life no one can explain. They can only create life from living matter already here. The bible tells us God made man and woman adults when he created them male and female. We know it has to be true no baby could have survived without parents. Think again the bible has the only answer. God formed man from the soil he created then breathed his own life into him making him a living soul.. Think for a minute.... God cursed the soil when man fell and removed his right to eat from the tree of life and live forever. The only way possible is Gods way.

 

[F1fan]

You can not make a statement as a blanket to cover all.

Most all animals fear death, including humans. Some don't, they tend to be very conscious of the life cycle and don't assign too much significant to their immortality.

Surely you are not pretending that modern day mediums exist who contact the dead. The statement was clear in itself. What about them if death is the end for you and nothing after? The bible show Saul losing his Kingdom when got a medium to contact the dead prophet. The supernatural as atheists would call it, exists. Explain it away.

There is no reason to assume or believe there is a supernatural in any form. The Bible is irrelevant and not evidence.

So how did God figure in the above? No matter where you go, even tribes only discovered from travel believe in higher power.

Gods were invented to explain natural phenomenon that had no factual explanation. Thor explained thunder. Earthquakes were God's wrath as a punishment against.... whatever the elders said. Primitive people designed scenarios to have answers for a people who had questions.

But it isn't the same at all. Hobbits exist only in a book of fiction.Unless you read the book you know nothing about them. But God existed from the beginning with mankind and the beliefs are widely held without an author.

Baggins kicked ***. Let's talk about the things he did. We can also talk about what God did in the Bible. But let's not assume both characters exist outside of the stories.

The Jews diagreed with each other. Sadducees and Pharisees held different beliefs but they knew the Messiah would bring the final word of God. Seems that the truth came out with Jesus and central truths the tenets of the faith of who Christ is the Son of God and his death and resurrection do not change. God knows the believers are now in Spirit and Truth.

It sucks when God can;t provide clear answers to the people. Look at all the disagreement for many thousands of years. We still don't have any definitive answers even though God provided the New testament, the Quran, the Mormon Bible, the Urantia book, and the many people who claims to have it all figured out. An absentee God will do that.

Throw away comment which you can neither justify or prove. In the great scheme of things intelligent people who seek by reason and truth believe in God. But we cannot really discuss idols or gods which are not really putting any input in this world.

Belief is god/religion is largely a unconscious and social phenomenon. Even intelligent people will believe and not understand why they are motivated to adopt this pattern of social behavior.

Obviously not well read about the historical events in the bible. Even the flood was symbolic of life after death and the one dying for the many as a true sacrifice Jesus made the difference no other religion did. Eventually like some Jews already they will see that the Gentiles/Christians have been added to the fold. The very first Christians were all Jews. Today the Jews all over the world must be descendants of Judah and Benjamin tribes,

i think none of the stories of the Bible are factual. To my mind it can only make some kind of sense is if it's all treated as symbolic.

How would you relate the above to a blind and deaf person? Christ raised the dead. Made the blind to see; the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak, He cured the leper and the lame. You can do these things too. The real test is have you tried to believe and do you want to believe if true? Many people remain in these disabilities because people like yourself who could have chose to look for truth and ask God to show you, have not done so. So you have a choice that choice can make a difference. So unless you know and can ask God for your own proof personally with a trusting and truthful heart how do you hope to get your proof? It is down to you just to ask. Seek the Kingdom and ask God.

Just to clarify here, you're saying I can magically cure deaf and blind people but I cannot since I'm not a believer?

If so, why aren't there stories in the media every day of people being cured by the right kind of believer, which I assume is like you? How many deaf and blind people have you cured?

A great falling away from truth. But the believer and those who are chosen will still succeed where you fail. Being an atheist is choice and you can see from above that those who followed Christ did what he did.

Atheists only fail to blindly adopt religion from their social experience. It is a choice to ask for evidence. It is not our choice that no compelling evidence is presented by believers.


Even those who never knew him did miracles in his name. You can make a difference by searching for the truth,. Honest Thomas doubted and said what he needed to believe. We see Christ met that need. Because Thomas like yourself could not believe Christ had risen without seeing him and when he did he no longer doubted. But you have no yet decided what you need. Thomas did not want proof for others, he needed for himself. We all need to know what proof we need.

The very first life no one can explain. They can only create life from living matter already here. The bible tells us God made man and woman adults when he created them male and female. We know it has to be true no baby could have survived without parents. Think again the bible has the only answer. God formed man from the soil he created then breathed his own life into him making him a living soul.. Think for a minute.... God cursed the soil when man fell and removed his right to eat from the tree of life and live forever. The only way possible is Gods way.

If science can;'t answer our questions yet then we don't know. What we do know is that the Bible is not relevant to answer serious questions.

 

[alypius]

Do you consider the claim "I ate polar bear for lunch" to be an ordinary claim? I used that as a mildly extraordinary claim, as it could be true, but so far outside of probability that it is extraordinary. And ordinary claim is "I ate a ham sandwich for lunch." Do you follow here? Extraordinary claims are by definition outside the ordinary. Being outside the ordinary and mundane such a claim requires more compelling evidence.

Isn't evidence inherently compelling?
Another way of phrasing the point: By Occam's Razor, wouldn't it be more efficient to say that any claim whether ordinary or extraordinary requires just evidence?

 

[alypius]

I don't think you do history. Wiki is often a good starting point:

List of Gospels - Wikipedia

Would you agree that archeologists study artifacts (like pots and statues) from the past, and historians study documents (like Plutarch's Lives of the Caesars)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't evidence inherently compelling?
Another way of phrasing the point: By Occam's Razor, wouldn't it be more efficient to say that any claim whether ordinary or extraordinary requires just evidence?

No. There are all sorts of different kinds of evidence. Some evidence is laughably weak. Some is well respected.

I do not know of any well respected evidence for God. I know that there is no scientific evidence for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you agree that archeologists study artifacts (like pots and statues) from the past, and historians study documents (like Plutarch's Lives of the Caesars)?

Yes. Though this is quite the non sequitur. Archaeologists are not historians.

 

[actsfourthirty]

Notice I didn't say, "I refuse to" The point is I cannot believe in it.

I watched a debate on the resurrection this morning. At some point, Matt Dillahunty came out and asked "Do you have anything outside the Bible to support the resurrection." Jonathan McLatchie answered. "NO."

That's it in a nutshell. All apologists--Craig, Licona, Horn, Woods, et al use nothing but the Bible to lay out their "evidence" Jesus rose. Claim: the apostles saw something that convinced them. Fact: There is no secular evidence anywhere outside the Bible that mentions the apostles. Claim: the empty tomb. Fact we have no empty tomb. Claim: the apostles were willing to die for their belief. Fact: we have nothing inside and outside the Bible that mentions what most of the apostles subsequently did or how they died. Claim: There were eyewitnesses. Fact: Nobody outside the Bible recorded a single thing about seeing Jesus after he was crucified.

Outrageous claim:

The historical evidence shows that: the grave was empty; the grave clothes were neatly left behind; the stone enclosing the tomb was rolled away; the body of Jesus was never found.

10 Concise Pieces of Evidence for the Resurrection - The Gospel Coalition | Canada

WHAT historical evidence????????

I mean in the link above it gets much MUCH worse than that.

Fact: take away the Bible and any "proof" for Jesus' resurrection collapses.

I do
The faith of the apostles
The 2000 year teaching of the church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles
Matt 16:18 28:19 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20