927 thoughts on “What Makes Something Right or Wrong?”
Ahhhh. . .. well! I have a daughter (in Marketing) who has been ‘stolen’ three times by headhunters. ..you must have a skill set in much demand – good on you!! Methinks you are being a bit humble. . 🙂
If that is the case, Carmen, I somehow missed the information – and the part where employers are looking at me for work. Not a whole lot has been coming my way, aside from retail and sales jobs that aren’t my forte. This is a first.
So anyway, our friend Gary has been “challenged” to a formal debate by random christian whom Gary might have pissed off somewhere else (isn’t he popular). And unfortunately our friend obliged after risking being called chicken by teenagers (or adults with teenagers tendencies, can’t really be sure tbh).
Purpose of me posting this – to me the whole thrust of Gary’s point is that resurrection is the least plausible scenario, while there are so many other possible ways to explain, and honestly any other explanation would have been more possible than “hey yo miracle”.
Unfortunately, looking at the comments that’s not what the people were looking for. So I’m a little bit confused. What am I missing?
I would have commented in the comment thread but they apparently locked my account for ad spamming? It’s a newly created account and I’m blocked 10 mins in. Or maybe there are too many people named Powell Powers….
Anyway thoughts are welcomed, especially from our resident theists. Would like to know if you guys agree with the commentators or am I the only one who think that they are dicks?
i cant seem to find the actual debate. but the first few comments I read make it sound like there’s this over abundance of evidence in support of the Resurrection. what is this evidence?
i read a lot of claims by christians that most scholars agree that Jesus was real, and that his followers saw him after his death and that his tomb was empty 3 days after the crucifixion. SO far I cannot find anything to support those claims beyond sourceless apologetic claims.
Am I missing something?
basically the majority of scholars agree there was a man named jesus who had some type of following, and who was likely crucified by the romans. Even these are still debated, but i do think most would agree with this. but there is no certified tomb of Jesus that anyone can point to, and missing bodies pretty much never mean “died, arose from the dead, and flew into heaven.” a missing body usually means that a body is missing.
“my keys have been raptured,” said the christian who lost their keys, “it’s the only thing that mist reasonably answers why my keys are not here, why I cannot find them and where they are now.”
it’s hard to read people insist such claims are evidence.
the bottom line is that Nick says there are scholars who believe that believers, believe they saw jesus after he died, that there was absolutely an empty tomb, that no one could invent women witnesses (so it must be true), and that many saw resurrected jesus at the same time (except it’s a claim that he was seen by many), and that it would be impossible for Christianity to have persisted through the years if it weren’t true, so it must be true.
Yeah I get that from Nick, but just wondering about the commentators reaction. Was worried that I’m getting crazy since all I saw was support for Nick and dismissive attitude towards what I thought was the most poignant point of Gary’s – regarding probability.
Oh well… Perhaps I’m just trying to find solace within birds of my same feather.
Yes, they don’t think much of my argumentative skills over at Theology web, do they? However, none of them have responded to my final statement: Why am I as an agnostic/atheist being closed-minded for not believing the exact same evidence regarding the Resurrection claim that was available to Saul of Tarsus (prior to his vision on the Damascus Road) the Pharisee, rabbi, and High Priest’s policeman and official Christian-hunter, which he did not find convincing?
He was torturing and killing a lot of people who “would not die for a lie” and he would have known about the Christians using women as the first witnesses, SURELY something they would not do if they had made the whole thing up or if it were a legend.
I read through everything I think, and left several comments. Some people are so set in their ways that they’re blind to anything else. I hope I am not that way, and have always tried not to be.
i’m just gonna leave their forum alone. I’m just getting argumentative and repetitive. Needless to say that i am satisfied they have nothing profound or anything beyond martyrs, believers, female witnesses, and shameful (pedophile like) crucifixions, and the gospels.
“who would believe a lie” isn’t a good argument to me, but evidently it is to some.
I believe that the issue with Saul NOT believing all the alleged evidence everywhere around him in immediate post-crucifixion Jerusalem is a BIG deal. Am I over-reading this importance of this, my skeptic friends?
Here is my latest comment on that forum:
Wow!
I have shown that Saul had all the evidence Nick (Christian apologist) gave to me and yet did NOT find it convincing. Yet Nick and the rest of the Christians on this site think that I and other non-believing skeptics are close-minded for not believing the very same evidence, that a Bible-literate, educated, first century Jew did not find convincing. And Nick’s only explanation for Saul’s nonbelief is that Saul knew MORE Jewish beliefs and customs than the average first century Jew converting to Christianity in his day!
So let me get this straight: If you knew MORE about the beliefs of ancient Judaism in the early days of Christianity, you were less likely to believe the Christian claims???
In other words then: ignorance is bliss?
My goodness, my Christian friends. Don’t you see a massive problem with this argument??
i think it’s an excellent point. Paul even says that he thought his fight against Christianity was the right thing to do, and it took a miracle to show him otherwise – and He’s not alone in that.
but I think we’ve seen the evidence they have. Round and round, it’s just the same stuff, which is why I bailed. If that’s all that they have, then they have nothing for me. And if they find that sort of stuff iron clad, then they’re unreasonable and I have found that you cannot reason with unreasonable people.
also, I dont care for debates. I have never witnessed one where truth and accuracy were the primary objective, they instead require people to step toe to toe and try to score points as in a game. This means the opponents already have their minds made up and the onlookers usually do as well, as if they were fans watching a football game, with biases views of events, blind to fouls and fair officiating. I am automatically skeptical of people who crave debates for that reason.
I’d like to see a good explanation/response from the theists to this statement:
Think about this, Christian friends:
If you read the Gospels, specifically the Gospel of Luke, if the Gospels are historically accurate, none of the evidence given by Nick convinced the eleven apostles either…including post-resurrection appearances!!
Get out your Bible and read it for yourself: The Eleven had been with Jesus for three years, they had seen incredible miracles INCLUDING raising people from the dead, they had just seen with their own eyes the empty tomb guarded by Roman guards 24/7, AND then, Jesus appears right in their midst…and do they believe? No! They are terrified because they think they are seeing a ghost (hallucinating).
Jesus then shows them his wounds, he tells them to touch him, he eats broiled fish, all to convince them that he is not a ghost. BUT, that isn’t enough! Jesus then has to use his supernatural powers to “open their minds” so that FINALLY, they see the truth.
Dear friends: If seeing a walking/talking/broiled fish eating corpse is not good enough evidence for the apostles to believe, and if first century Jews converting to a religion of shame by the thousands; a shameful religion that uses women as its first witnesses; and, these many Jewish Christians are people who would not die for a lie, but yet they are being executed right and left at the hands of Saul…and Saul doesn’t find the evidence convincing, why on earth should anyone living today, 2,000 years later, find your “cumulative” evidence convincing??
If the Bible accounts regarding the Eleven and Saul/Paul are true then that means that the pillars of the Christian Church required one of two events to occur in order to believe the same evidence you are asking me to believe:
1. A reanimated dead first century prophet/god must use his supernatural powers on me to open my brain.
2. I must have a “heavenly vision” in which I see and hear a talking bright light tell me it is a dead prophet/god and that I am going to be its missionary.
These are NOT rational beliefs, friends. You would never accept this kind of logic from any other religion.
gary, on the luke text, I’m not sure that the apostles still didn’t believe. I agree that word is used, but the way it’s used makes me think of someone who just won the lottery saying, “I just dont believe it,” as a way of commenting on something incredible that shouldn’t be true, yet is.
The text then goes on to say that he opened their mind to understand the scripture.
The word “disbelieve” is there, no doubt, but i can totally understand why they dont see it the way you’re giving it.
I wouldnt push that point because of that but also because it’s not necessary. They needed to see him for themselves and even then it took a moment to sink in. We dont have that today. I think it also gives hint at how the religion and legend actually developed.
It says that Jesus opened their mind to what the scriptures had said or meant, which means that they took it to mean something completely different. And indeed, when I read the OT, it doesnt appear to be leading to anything, but then rereading the NT, they point to snippets here and there and when looking at those snippets while knowing the Christ myth, it creates a picture.
I think the disciples were all surprised that their messiah died. He was supposed to liberate them. But after looking and looking and trying their best to make sense of it, they began making connections and leaps in logic and “oh yeah, he died just like the passover lamb,” and “oh yeah, his mom was a virgin like my greek translation of Isaiah says,” and “oh wow, his kingdom must have been spiritual and not physical and that’s what he was trying to say that one time…” Like in Fight Club where they’re trying to make sense of Meat Loafs death in Project Mayhem… “In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name, and his name was Robert Paulson.”
Thanks for the insights, William. I can see your point. I still think the disciples were having trouble believing he wasn’t a ghost, but I guess, as is often the case, a passage written 2,000 years ago is open to interpretation.
Anyway, thanks for your support over there, and thanks to Powell for his support on my blog! Sometimes you begin to question your own sanity when you are the only skeptic in a long discussion with theists.
PS: The Judeo-Christian god has been practicing mind-control for thousands of years. The first instance that comes to mind is when He hardened Pharaoh’s “heart”.
Gary, I’d like to recommend a tactic for your next debate – you can take it or leave it.
Christians want everyone to think that the resurrection is the best explanation of all of the evidence. Perhaps a good way of refuting this would be to lay out a scenario that explains all of the evidence without invoking the supernatural. (I think you’ve already done this before here on Nate’s blog.)
A good natural explanation that covers as many data points as possible would be more convincing than using analogies. It would have to be fairly well researched and bounced against all of the usual apologetic comebacks. Once this is done it is then a matter of using probabilities to decide which scenario is more probable. Of course, people coming back from the dead is always the least probable. Things like embellished stories are infinitely more common. Then you just have to point out all of the logical fallacies that may arise in the counter arguments.
By the way, I think the point you make about Saul not believing is a good one.
One should bear in mind that none of the gospels were written until after Saul/Paul’s death in 68 – he would not have been privy to them, only hearsay.
Finding Truth 
Ahhhh. . .. well! I have a daughter (in Marketing) who has been ‘stolen’ three times by headhunters. ..you must have a skill set in much demand – good on you!! Methinks you are being a bit humble. . 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, Arch! I could really use it!
LikeLike
If that is the case, Carmen, I somehow missed the information – and the part where employers are looking at me for work. Not a whole lot has been coming my way, aside from retail and sales jobs that aren’t my forte. This is a first.
LikeLike
So anyway, our friend Gary has been “challenged” to a formal debate by random christian whom Gary might have pissed off somewhere else (isn’t he popular). And unfortunately our friend obliged after risking being called chicken by teenagers (or adults with teenagers tendencies, can’t really be sure tbh).
So here are the links:
Debate:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7724-Comment-Thread-for-The-Resurrection-of-Jesus-Apologiaphoenix-vs-Gary
Comments about the Debate:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7724-Comment-Thread-for-The-Resurrection-of-Jesus-Apologiaphoenix-vs-Gary
Purpose of me posting this – to me the whole thrust of Gary’s point is that resurrection is the least plausible scenario, while there are so many other possible ways to explain, and honestly any other explanation would have been more possible than “hey yo miracle”.
Unfortunately, looking at the comments that’s not what the people were looking for. So I’m a little bit confused. What am I missing?
I would have commented in the comment thread but they apparently locked my account for ad spamming? It’s a newly created account and I’m blocked 10 mins in. Or maybe there are too many people named Powell Powers….
Anyway thoughts are welcomed, especially from our resident theists. Would like to know if you guys agree with the commentators or am I the only one who think that they are dicks?
LikeLike
i cant seem to find the actual debate. but the first few comments I read make it sound like there’s this over abundance of evidence in support of the Resurrection. what is this evidence?
i read a lot of claims by christians that most scholars agree that Jesus was real, and that his followers saw him after his death and that his tomb was empty 3 days after the crucifixion. SO far I cannot find anything to support those claims beyond sourceless apologetic claims.
Am I missing something?
basically the majority of scholars agree there was a man named jesus who had some type of following, and who was likely crucified by the romans. Even these are still debated, but i do think most would agree with this. but there is no certified tomb of Jesus that anyone can point to, and missing bodies pretty much never mean “died, arose from the dead, and flew into heaven.” a missing body usually means that a body is missing.
“my keys have been raptured,” said the christian who lost their keys, “it’s the only thing that mist reasonably answers why my keys are not here, why I cannot find them and where they are now.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s the link to the debate, but I haven’t had a chance to read it yet:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7723-Debate-on-the-Resurrection-of-Jesus-Apologiaphoenix-vs-Gary
LikeLike
it’s hard to read people insist such claims are evidence.
the bottom line is that Nick says there are scholars who believe that believers, believe they saw jesus after he died, that there was absolutely an empty tomb, that no one could invent women witnesses (so it must be true), and that many saw resurrected jesus at the same time (except it’s a claim that he was seen by many), and that it would be impossible for Christianity to have persisted through the years if it weren’t true, so it must be true.
you cant reason with unreasonable people.
LikeLike
@William,
Yeah I get that from Nick, but just wondering about the commentators reaction. Was worried that I’m getting crazy since all I saw was support for Nick and dismissive attitude towards what I thought was the most poignant point of Gary’s – regarding probability.
Oh well… Perhaps I’m just trying to find solace within birds of my same feather.
LikeLike
Hi my skeptic friends,
Yes, they don’t think much of my argumentative skills over at Theology web, do they? However, none of them have responded to my final statement: Why am I as an agnostic/atheist being closed-minded for not believing the exact same evidence regarding the Resurrection claim that was available to Saul of Tarsus (prior to his vision on the Damascus Road) the Pharisee, rabbi, and High Priest’s policeman and official Christian-hunter, which he did not find convincing?
He was torturing and killing a lot of people who “would not die for a lie” and he would have known about the Christians using women as the first witnesses, SURELY something they would not do if they had made the whole thing up or if it were a legend.
LikeLike
I read through everything I think, and left several comments. Some people are so set in their ways that they’re blind to anything else. I hope I am not that way, and have always tried not to be.
LikeLike
i’m just gonna leave their forum alone. I’m just getting argumentative and repetitive. Needless to say that i am satisfied they have nothing profound or anything beyond martyrs, believers, female witnesses, and shameful (pedophile like) crucifixions, and the gospels.
“who would believe a lie” isn’t a good argument to me, but evidently it is to some.
LikeLike
I believe that the issue with Saul NOT believing all the alleged evidence everywhere around him in immediate post-crucifixion Jerusalem is a BIG deal. Am I over-reading this importance of this, my skeptic friends?
Here is my latest comment on that forum:
Wow!
I have shown that Saul had all the evidence Nick (Christian apologist) gave to me and yet did NOT find it convincing. Yet Nick and the rest of the Christians on this site think that I and other non-believing skeptics are close-minded for not believing the very same evidence, that a Bible-literate, educated, first century Jew did not find convincing. And Nick’s only explanation for Saul’s nonbelief is that Saul knew MORE Jewish beliefs and customs than the average first century Jew converting to Christianity in his day!
So let me get this straight: If you knew MORE about the beliefs of ancient Judaism in the early days of Christianity, you were less likely to believe the Christian claims???
In other words then: ignorance is bliss?
My goodness, my Christian friends. Don’t you see a massive problem with this argument??
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, Gary, I think that’s an excellent point. Not really one I had thought of before.
LikeLike
i think it’s an excellent point. Paul even says that he thought his fight against Christianity was the right thing to do, and it took a miracle to show him otherwise – and He’s not alone in that.
but I think we’ve seen the evidence they have. Round and round, it’s just the same stuff, which is why I bailed. If that’s all that they have, then they have nothing for me. And if they find that sort of stuff iron clad, then they’re unreasonable and I have found that you cannot reason with unreasonable people.
also, I dont care for debates. I have never witnessed one where truth and accuracy were the primary objective, they instead require people to step toe to toe and try to score points as in a game. This means the opponents already have their minds made up and the onlookers usually do as well, as if they were fans watching a football game, with biases views of events, blind to fouls and fair officiating. I am automatically skeptical of people who crave debates for that reason.
LikeLike
I’d like to see a good explanation/response from the theists to this statement:
Think about this, Christian friends:
If you read the Gospels, specifically the Gospel of Luke, if the Gospels are historically accurate, none of the evidence given by Nick convinced the eleven apostles either…including post-resurrection appearances!!
Get out your Bible and read it for yourself: The Eleven had been with Jesus for three years, they had seen incredible miracles INCLUDING raising people from the dead, they had just seen with their own eyes the empty tomb guarded by Roman guards 24/7, AND then, Jesus appears right in their midst…and do they believe? No! They are terrified because they think they are seeing a ghost (hallucinating).
Jesus then shows them his wounds, he tells them to touch him, he eats broiled fish, all to convince them that he is not a ghost. BUT, that isn’t enough! Jesus then has to use his supernatural powers to “open their minds” so that FINALLY, they see the truth.
Dear friends: If seeing a walking/talking/broiled fish eating corpse is not good enough evidence for the apostles to believe, and if first century Jews converting to a religion of shame by the thousands; a shameful religion that uses women as its first witnesses; and, these many Jewish Christians are people who would not die for a lie, but yet they are being executed right and left at the hands of Saul…and Saul doesn’t find the evidence convincing, why on earth should anyone living today, 2,000 years later, find your “cumulative” evidence convincing??
If the Bible accounts regarding the Eleven and Saul/Paul are true then that means that the pillars of the Christian Church required one of two events to occur in order to believe the same evidence you are asking me to believe:
1. A reanimated dead first century prophet/god must use his supernatural powers on me to open my brain.
2. I must have a “heavenly vision” in which I see and hear a talking bright light tell me it is a dead prophet/god and that I am going to be its missionary.
These are NOT rational beliefs, friends. You would never accept this kind of logic from any other religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
well, gary, they don’t appear to be rational friends…
LikeLike
Very true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gary, on the luke text, I’m not sure that the apostles still didn’t believe. I agree that word is used, but the way it’s used makes me think of someone who just won the lottery saying, “I just dont believe it,” as a way of commenting on something incredible that shouldn’t be true, yet is.
The text then goes on to say that he opened their mind to understand the scripture.
The word “disbelieve” is there, no doubt, but i can totally understand why they dont see it the way you’re giving it.
I wouldnt push that point because of that but also because it’s not necessary. They needed to see him for themselves and even then it took a moment to sink in. We dont have that today. I think it also gives hint at how the religion and legend actually developed.
It says that Jesus opened their mind to what the scriptures had said or meant, which means that they took it to mean something completely different. And indeed, when I read the OT, it doesnt appear to be leading to anything, but then rereading the NT, they point to snippets here and there and when looking at those snippets while knowing the Christ myth, it creates a picture.
I think the disciples were all surprised that their messiah died. He was supposed to liberate them. But after looking and looking and trying their best to make sense of it, they began making connections and leaps in logic and “oh yeah, he died just like the passover lamb,” and “oh yeah, his mom was a virgin like my greek translation of Isaiah says,” and “oh wow, his kingdom must have been spiritual and not physical and that’s what he was trying to say that one time…” Like in Fight Club where they’re trying to make sense of Meat Loafs death in Project Mayhem… “In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name, and his name was Robert Paulson.”
LikeLike
@William + Nate
Thanks for chipping in. Appreciate both of your thoughts.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the insights, William. I can see your point. I still think the disciples were having trouble believing he wasn’t a ghost, but I guess, as is often the case, a passage written 2,000 years ago is open to interpretation.
Anyway, thanks for your support over there, and thanks to Powell for his support on my blog! Sometimes you begin to question your own sanity when you are the only skeptic in a long discussion with theists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS: The Judeo-Christian god has been practicing mind-control for thousands of years. The first instance that comes to mind is when He hardened Pharaoh’s “heart”.
LikeLike
Gary, I’d like to recommend a tactic for your next debate – you can take it or leave it.
Christians want everyone to think that the resurrection is the best explanation of all of the evidence. Perhaps a good way of refuting this would be to lay out a scenario that explains all of the evidence without invoking the supernatural. (I think you’ve already done this before here on Nate’s blog.)
A good natural explanation that covers as many data points as possible would be more convincing than using analogies. It would have to be fairly well researched and bounced against all of the usual apologetic comebacks. Once this is done it is then a matter of using probabilities to decide which scenario is more probable. Of course, people coming back from the dead is always the least probable. Things like embellished stories are infinitely more common. Then you just have to point out all of the logical fallacies that may arise in the counter arguments.
By the way, I think the point you make about Saul not believing is a good one.
LikeLike
One should bear in mind that none of the gospels were written until after Saul/Paul’s death in 68 – he would not have been privy to them, only hearsay.
LikeLike
The following are forgeries (per Bart Ehrman), written after the death of Paul:
Timothy I
Timothy II
Titus
Thessalonians II
Ephesians
Colossians
LikeLike