Abortion & atheism vs. crusade & religion

04/20/2013 02:45:25 PM · #301

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
I'm just not ok with anything that contradicts science and logic.

Yet science contradicts itself quite often, as we stumble forward towards the scientific frontier. The most obvious example is the work of Louis Agassiz and his work in eugenics much of which was codified into law to improve the racial quality of our species. It turns out that not only did it foster bad laws, but that the entire science was founded on mismeasurement due to perceptual error. Stephen Gould's The Mismeasure of Man is a great read on this.

Like religion, science can go down a blind alley sometimes when some error is introduced. We can fall in love with an idea sometimes and blind ourselves to what is true. Humans are imperfect, and we have to move with caution and the realization that no matter how certain we feel, we may be wrong.

I'm sorry, I misstated myself slightly there.

I am not ok with anything that contradicts science and logic, and does not attempt to aggressively reconcile the issue.

Sure science goes wrong, but that's what I was on about something like 10 posts ago - science actively utilizes a sort of self-awareness and self correction that religion does not. To me that is all the difference.

04/20/2013 02:45:48 PM · #302

Originally posted by Mike:

do you realize that you are just as much as an extremest in your views as those you oppose?

Yes. I do. Perhaps more so, in all honestly, at least in some ways.

Although, in truth, I probably bring the fire here a little more strongly than I really feel. I just find rhetoric is best delivered in a powerful way. It's not that I REALLY believe all of this quite so strongly - in fact, I really do think religion serves a very important purpose in the world, I just don't agree as to it's proper place and level of authority.

Message edited by author 2013-04-20 14:50:23.

04/20/2013 10:24:04 PM · #303

Originally posted by Cory:

I'm just not ok with anything that contradicts science and logic. Not ok at all, it's not acceptable to me as logic is effectively the tool we use to reason, and once you're willing to shut of your ability to reason so that you can accept whatever you're told, that's a dangerous dangerous dangerous thing.

Forsaking logic and reason is not a prerequisite for religious belief. If you don't understand that, then I guess you just haven't thought deeply enough about religion.
Here's an example of a well-read and well-educated Harvard student who gave up atheism to become a Christian... without abandoning logic or reason.

Originally posted by Cory:

Hell, I have NO doubt there are Christians and Muslims alike who'd find justifying killing me pretty easy to do, given my views.

Any Christian that would kill you is a false Christian.

If you want to believe that I'm brain damaged, then so be it. I'll send you a report from my neurologist next time I get my head checked to confirm your suspicion. But I assure you, I have never abandoned reason or logic to maintain my faith. Never. In fact, I would strongly defend my belief that logic and reason have done much to help me justify and increase my faith.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/21/2013 07:44:45 AM · #304

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

...Any Christian that would kill you is a false Christian.

Do they come with signs...rather hard to differentiate the bad from the good.

If there is one thing that I do find annoying about Christians, it's this ability to deny something simply by saying something like, "You don't understand, you misinterpreted the contents, that person is not representative of Christians".

Too easy and does not address the issue.

Ray

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/21/2013 07:59:11 AM · #305

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

...Any Christian that would kill you is a false Christian.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Count me in as someone who'd like for you guys to wear signs, or even tasteful lapel pins, so we can differentiate the hypocrites & liars from the good ones.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/21/2013 08:05:26 AM · #306

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I would strongly defend my belief that logic and reason have done much to help me justify and increase my faith.

Okay.......I have copied this unchanged.....

Originally posted by Merriam-Webster:

Definition of FAITH

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

It sure doesn't seem like your statement above is much supported by the definition of faith as it applies to religion.

ETA:To whom do you need to justify your faith? Isn't faith a personal thing, totally separate from anything anyone else has the ability to influence?

I'm also curious as to how logic and reason would increase your faith. That just doesn't really make sense. If logic and reason support something, then it isn't faith, it would seem.....

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 08:09:14.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/21/2013 01:55:23 PM · #307

I always found this passage from CS Lewis helpful when this particular topic comes up as far as "who is a Christian"

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name
Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to
those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its
being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they
should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some
refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ"
than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological,
or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all
understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine
lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than
to say he is not a Christian.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/21/2013 02:40:00 PM · #308

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Okay.....but how are we, who are outside your faith supposed to differentiate, and then why do y'all get so mad when Westboro is brought up?

After all, they're still Christian by that definition, right?

Granted, that's ugly, but assuredly, there has to be a line, right?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/21/2013 02:48:44 PM · #309

Well, sometimes they are so far out there they are unworthy of using as examples. Westbrook members are also American. I'm sure you'd feel some righteous indignation if someone lumped you in with them on that factor. They are also lawyers. Should all lawyers hang their heads in shame?

The reason people get mad is they really do get brought up as examples of what Christianity produces with the implication that this is a natural outcome of the creed.

04/21/2013 02:53:03 PM · #310

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Not sure who these Westbrook folks are, but if we're talking about Westboro as I suspect we are:

I'd say they're a rather extraordinarily unfettered example of American Christian Lawyers. Hell, they're the model of perfection in that respect IMO.

How can you say they're not? They have a very direct interpretation of the bible, upon which they stand fast (respectable, if bat-shit crazy and annoying)[Christian], they litigate everything they can, and get nearly all of their funding from this activity [lawyer]. They have made tons of money doing this, and have become famous as well [American].

Nope, I'd argue that they're nearly perfect type specimens - and should probably be vivisected and studied. ;)

As for your idea that is somehow "the natural outcome of the creed", that's not quite right, it's more like "a natural outcome of belief without proof, ie, 'faith'"

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 17:22:20.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/21/2013 05:25:39 PM · #311

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Should all lawyers hang their heads in shame?

Is this one of them rhetorical questions?

Ray

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/21/2013 05:34:18 PM · #312

Ya, sorry about the autocorrect. I meant Westboro, of course.

04/21/2013 05:52:37 PM · #313

Originally posted by RayEthier:

If there is one thing that I do find annoying about Christians, it's this ability to deny something simply by saying something like, "You don't understand, you misinterpreted the contents, that person is not representative of Christians".

Too easy and does not address the issue.

Ray

Actually, what I'm saying is a little different. I'm saying that "false Christians" DO represent Christianity, but they represent in falsely. Anyone who claims any allegiance to Christ (i.e., is a self-declared Christian) represents Christianity. But if that person misrepresents Christ's teachings (i.e., they kill someone), then they are giving a false representation of what Christianity is supposed to be. That doesn't mean that we ignore it, but we do have to use our thinking caps and be discerning. We can't stereotype or generalize. We have to carefully distinguish between people who represent their proclaimed beliefs well, and those who don't. Does that mean you have to put forth some effort so that you don't wrongly judge others? Yes, it does. But it also means that the Christians who represent their proclaimed beliefs well also need to work harder to make the distinction more clear.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Count me in as someone who'd like for you guys to wear signs, or even tasteful lapel pins, so we can differentiate the hypocrites & liars from the good ones.

You mean like how the Nazis made the Jews wear arm patches? That didn't go so well for humanity.

In all seriousness, though, you make a good point about differentiation. The Nazis differentiated with the intention to do harm and extreme evil. However, I would encourage the non-religious to differentiate the hypocrites from the "good ones" as you say, especially for the purpose of understanding religion better and cooperating more with the "good" religious people in the world. Unfortunately, differentiation is often used to discriminate and oppress. But the fact that non-religious people in the world have a difficult time differentiating between the "good ones" (those who do what their religion teaches) and the "bad ones" (those who go against the teachings of their religion) shows us two things. First, it shows us that those who struggle to see the difference are either uninformed (they don't know what a particular religion actually teaches) or they are uninterested/"too busy"(they don't want to take the time to learn about a particular religion). Second, it shows us that the "good" religious people in the world need to do a better job of separating themselves from "bad ones." I honestly believe that if non-religious people spent a little more time LISTENING to "good" religious people (those who do what their religion teaches) with an OPEN MIND about what their religion is really about, it would be much easier to differentiate between good and bad. I also honestly believe that if religious people spent a little more time DOING what their religion asks of them, then it would be more obvious to non-religious people what true, sincere, authentic religion actually is. One problem is that people privatize their their so the rest of the world can't see what true religion actually is. Another problem is that there is a growing attitude in society among the non-religious that they don't want religious people practicing their religion in public. I've seen this many times even in the forums here. So religious people are afraid to go out and do good to others in the name of their religion because they fear backlash from the non-religious.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It sure doesn't seem like your statement above is much supported by the definition of faith as it applies to religion.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'm also curious as to how logic and reason would increase your faith. That just doesn't really make sense. If logic and reason support something, then it isn't faith, it would seem.....

I should clarify what I mean when I say that logic and reason helps to increase my faith. I do not mean that my fundamental belief in the existence of God is rooted in logic and reason. That would contradict the definition of faith, as you wisely pointed out. What I do mean is that many of the teachings,claims, and principles that I find in the Bible are extremely reasonable and logical. For example, I personally find that the biblical understanding of love is much more logical than society's understanding of love, or science's definition of love, or the philosophical understanding of love from a humanistic perspective. Another example would be that I find many historical events to be more logically explained by the Bible than by anything else. Specifically, I find that the Bible's explanations for the empty tomb, the emergence of the Christian movement after Jesus' death, the extreme change evidenced in Jesus' disciples, etc., are much more logical than any other possible explanations for those phenomena that have been put forth.

Allow me to get even more specific... take the empty tomb, for example. Many different arguments have been proposed as to how Jesus' tomb could have been found empty. The Biblical claim is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. A popular alternative explanation is the resuscitation theory. This theory claims that Jesus was near death, but did not actually die on the cross. He was weakened to the point of appearing dead to professional physicians but not actually dead, despite the fact that he was stabbed with a spear by a Roman soldier to ensure his death. Then, after a few days in a tomb with no medical treatment, food, or water to revive him, Jesus regained enough strength to remove a large boulder by himself (one that would normally take multiple strong, healthy men to move) and walk out of the tomb. Further, he revived so quickly that in the following days when he appeared to his disciples, he was back to perfect health.

Now, from a scientific perspective the biblical claim seems illogical at first glance because it proposes that Jesus was God and that he was raised from the dead. It seems illogical because there is no scientific evidence proving that resurrection is possible. However, as is often the case in science, when there is no proof in favor of one claim, there is equally no proof against that claim. So, as there is no evidence proving the possibility of resurrection, there is equally no evidence to disprove the biblical claim that resurrection is possible. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that resurrection is scientifically impossible. It would be more accurate to say that resurrection is not scientifically proven. Nevertheless, science cannot claim that resurrection is impossible.

From a purely philosophical perspective, the biblical claim seems quite logical. We have to remember that the Biblical claim is that Jesus was not merely man, but was also God. Is it really so illogical that God would be able to bring a person back to life? No. In fact it's perfectly logical. If the Bible is correct, and God really is who the Bible says he is, then God would be perfectly capable of causing a resurrection to take place.

So it boils down to this. Is it more logical that a man would be able to survive execution at the hands of professional executors, with an additional spear through the side for good measure, and that a professional physician would be unable to determine whether this man was dead or alive, and that this man would somehow revive from these injuries without medical treatment, food, or water, and that this man would be able to regain enough strength to move a massive boulder on his own, and that this man would look well enough after all that to convince his friends that he was alive and well... or is it more logical that God (if he exists) would have the power to raise this man from the dead?

As you can see, the alternative theory (i.e., the scientific explanation) is outrageously improbable. The biblical claim simply hinges on one question: does God exist? Once you have faith (i.e., the fundamental belief in the existence of God) as I have, then logic can be quite helpful in increasing that faith. In this particular case, it is infinitely more logical that God, if he exists, would have the power to raise a man from the dead than it would be for a man clinging to life to revive himself without medical treatment and have the strength to move a gigantic boulder, all the while fooling his friends. Would an executioner fail to execute AND a physician fail to identify death AND etc... or would God fail to be God? While science is no help in proving the existence of God, it is equally no help in proving the existence of the empty tomb. In this case science fails, but faith and reason succeed. Also, just to clarify this... I am not throwing science out the window, nor am I allowing faith to trump science per se. I simply find that science is no help in determining the existence of God and that without faith, trying to explain the empty tomb is scientifically and logically improbable (if not impossible). Of course all of this depends on the historicity of the empty tomb event, but there are logical arguments for that as well.

Sorry for the long essay... it's your fault for asking how logic and reason increase my faith. That can't be answered in a few sentences.

04/21/2013 06:38:50 PM · #314

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

If there is one thing that I do find annoying about Christians, it's this ability to deny something simply by saying something like, "You don't understand, you misinterpreted the contents, that person is not representative of Christians".

Too easy and does not address the issue.

Ray

Actually, what I'm saying is a little different. I'm saying that "false Christians" DO represent Christianity, but they represent in falsely. Anyone who claims any allegiance to Christ (i.e., is a self-declared Christian) represents Christianity. But if that person misrepresents Christ's teachings (i.e., they kill someone), then they are giving a false representation of what Christianity is supposed to be. That doesn't mean that we ignore it, but we do have to use our thinking caps and be discerning. We can't stereotype or generalize. We have to carefully distinguish between people who represent their proclaimed beliefs well, and those who don't. Does that mean you have to put forth some effort so that you don't wrongly judge others? Yes, it does. But it also means that the Christians who represent their proclaimed beliefs well also need to work harder to make the distinction more clear.

Wow, that was the most long-winded version of "they're bad Christians" I've ever heard. You still failed to realize the problem at hand.

Not only that, but you've magnified it ten fold, as effectively you've just said that there are good people and bad people in every religion, but that they all look exactly the same, so in order to tell, we really should take the trouble to spend a day or twelve questioning every person we wish to evaluate about their deepest held beliefs? Furthermore, you'd hold that the 'bad' varieties would actually self report, instead of deceiving the questioner?

HAH! You really do live in a total fantasy world. Please do be sure to feed the unicorns before you leave, I think I left the food by the end of the rainbow.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Count me in as someone who'd like for you guys to wear signs, or even tasteful lapel pins, so we can differentiate the hypocrites & liars from the good ones.

You mean like how the Nazis made the Jews wear arm patches? That didn't go so well for humanity.

In all seriousness, though, you make a good point about differentiation. The Nazis differentiated with the intention to do harm and extreme evil. However, I would encourage the non-religious to differentiate the hypocrites from the "good ones" as you say, especially for the purpose of understanding religion better and cooperating more with the "good" religious people in the world. Unfortunately, differentiation is often used to discriminate and oppress. But the fact that non-religious people in the world have a difficult time differentiating between the "good ones" (those who do what their religion teaches) and the "bad ones" (those who go against the teachings of their religion) shows us two things. First, it shows us that those who struggle to see the difference are either uninformed (they don't know what a particular religion actually teaches) or they are uninterested/"too busy"(they don't want to take the time to learn about a particular religion). Second, it shows us that the "good" religious people in the world need to do a better job of separating themselves from "bad ones." I honestly believe that if non-religious people spent a little more time LISTENING to "good" religious people (those who do what their religion teaches) with an OPEN MIND about what their religion is really about, it would be much easier to differentiate between good and bad. I also honestly believe that if religious people spent a little more time DOING what their religion asks of them, then it would be more obvious to non-religious people what true, sincere, authentic religion actually is. One problem is that people privatize their their so the rest of the world can't see what true religion actually is. Another problem is that there is a growing attitude in society among the non-religious that they don't want religious people practicing their religion in public. I've seen this many times even in the forums here. So religious people are afraid to go out and do good to others in the name of their religion because they fear backlash from the non-religious.

So, now you're busy comparing the non-religious to the Nazis? Fascinating.

Might I point out that the Nazi's BELIEVED very strongly that they were making the world a better place?

As a continuation of your last point, why would we even bother attempting to differentiate in the first place if it's wrong to use that information?

And.. Seriously, you're delusional - you think Atheists are going to go around attacking religious groups for doing civil service? What sort of Jesus-Crack have you been smoking son?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It sure doesn't seem like your statement above is much supported by the definition of faith as it applies to religion.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'm also curious as to how logic and reason would increase your faith. That just doesn't really make sense. If logic and reason support something, then it isn't faith, it would seem.....

I should clarify what I mean when I say that logic and reason helps to increase my faith. I do not mean that my fundamental belief in the existence of God is rooted in logic and reason. That would contradict the definition of faith, as you wisely pointed out. What I do mean is that many of the teachings,claims, and principles that I find in the Bible are extremely reasonable and logical. For example, I personally find that the biblical understanding of love is much more logical than society's understanding of love, or science's definition of love, or the philosophical understanding of love from a humanistic perspective. Another example would be that I find many historical events to be more logically explained by the Bible than by anything else. Specifically, I find that the Bible's explanations for the empty tomb, the emergence of the Christian movement after Jesus' death, the extreme change evidenced in Jesus' disciples, etc., are much more logical than any other possible explanations for those phenomena that have been put forth.

Fail. Fail. Fail. So the Bible does a better job of explaining biblical history than any other source, so therefore it's probably right? just wow.

Even when the teaching of the Bible do make perfect logical and rational sense, you'll find that that's probably a teaching shared by all religions and cultures across the world, with a possible few rare exceptions.

Again, Fail.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Allow me to get even more specific... take the empty tomb, for example. Many different arguments have been proposed as to how Jesus' tomb could have been found empty. The Biblical claim is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. A popular alternative explanation is the resuscitation theory. This theory claims that Jesus was near death, but did not actually die on the cross. He was weakened to the point of appearing dead to professional physicians but not actually dead, despite the fact that he was stabbed with a spear by a Roman soldier to ensure his death. Then, after a few days in a tomb with no medical treatment, food, or water to revive him, Jesus regained enough strength to remove a large boulder by himself (one that would normally take multiple strong, healthy men to move) and walk out of the tomb. Further, he revived so quickly that in the following days when he appeared to his disciples, he was back to perfect health.

Now, from a scientific perspective the biblical claim seems illogical at first glance because it proposes that Jesus was God and that he was raised from the dead. It seems illogical because there is no scientific evidence proving that resurrection is possible. However, as is often the case in science, when there is no proof in favor of one claim, there is equally no proof against that claim. So, as there is no evidence proving the possibility of resurrection, there is equally no evidence to disprove the biblical claim that resurrection is possible. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that resurrection is scientifically impossible. It would be more accurate to say that resurrection is not scientifically proven. Nevertheless, science cannot claim that resurrection is impossible.

I'd like to share a bit of wisdom that might take a while to absorb.

My ecology professor in college used to proclaim that she believed in leprechauns, and pointed out that we would always be unable to disprove this claim.

You see, one of the important things about science is that we usually base it off of some sort of observation, and then test that observation with known tools.

Your idea fails here entirely because it's simply impossible to test your idea, of course we can't refute it, because we can't test it, due to the armor of religion - it's quite clever in that respect for certain.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

From a purely philosophical perspective, the biblical claim seems quite logical. We have to remember that the Biblical claim is that Jesus was not merely man, but was also God. Is it really so illogical that God would be able to bring a person back to life? No. In fact it's perfectly logical. If the Bible is correct, and God really is who the Bible says he is, then God would be perfectly capable of causing a resurrection to take place.

So it boils down to this. Is it more logical that a man would be able to survive execution at the hands of professional executors, with an additional spear through the side for good measure, and that a professional physician would be unable to determine whether this man was dead or alive, and that this man would somehow revive from these injuries without medical treatment, food, or water, and that this man would be able to regain enough strength to move a massive boulder on his own, and that this man would look well enough after all that to convince his friends that he was alive and well... or is it more logical that God (if he exists) would have the power to raise this man from the dead?

What's more logical is that this is a story written to persuade and influence.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

As you can see, the alternative theory (i.e., the scientific explanation) is outrageously improbable. The biblical claim simply hinges on one question: does God exist? Once you have faith (i.e., the fundamental belief in the existence of God) as I have, then logic can be quite helpful in increasing that faith. In this particular case, it is infinitely more logical that God, if he exists, would have the power to raise a man from the dead than it would be for a man clinging to life to revive himself without medical treatment and have the strength to move a gigantic boulder, all the while fooling his friends. Would an executioner fail to execute AND a physician fail to identify death AND etc... or would God fail to be God? While science is no help in proving the existence of God, it is equally no help in proving the existence of the empty tomb. In this case science fails, but faith and reason succeed. Also, just to clarify this... I am not throwing science out the window, nor am I allowing faith to trump science per se. I simply find that science is no help in determining the existence of God and that without faith, trying to explain the empty tomb is scientifically and logically improbable (if not impossible). Of course all of this depends on the historicity of the empty tomb event, but there are logical arguments for that as well.

Sorry for the long essay... it's your fault for asking how logic and reason increase my faith. That can't be answered in a few sentences.

No, thanks for the long essay, it's a fascinating glimpse into the sequence of logical failures that give rise to religious belief.

I enjoyed it greatly, thanks for posting!

-CB

04/21/2013 06:49:13 PM · #315

you are drawing an irrelevant conclusion.

you can be wrong, just because you believe that God exists does not mean that he can raise the dead, for example.

You are within your right to believe that God is all powerful, you don't need logic to prove it to yourself. Just believe it. However don't say its logical in a attempt to prove it to someone, it is not. There is zero evidence that God exists or even has this ability, its is simply your belief.

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 18:54:02.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/21/2013 08:09:18 PM · #316

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

...Specifically, I find that the Bible's explanations for the empty tomb, the emergence of the Christian movement after Jesus' death, the extreme change evidenced in Jesus' disciples, etc., are much more logical than any other possible explanations for those phenomena that have been put forth.

There are other accounts relating to the empty tomb that run counter to what you are advocating here... and they too are very logical and would in all probability be viewed as much more plausible a scenario than what you are advancing here.

You might want to peruse the contents of This and then tell me that this is NOT a plausible answer to the "Empty Tomb" scenario.

Ray

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/21/2013 08:25:21 PM · #317

Originally posted by Mike:

Clearly you didn't read all of my post. I specifically explained that logic does not help me maintain a fundamental belief in the existence of God. Additionally, I never said that belief in God is logical.

It's really not even possible to consider this a valid response to my post because you're responding to things that I did not write.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

You might want to peruse the contents of This and then tell me that this is NOT a plausible answer to the "Empty Tomb" scenario.

Ray

I look forward to it. Looks like it might take some time to read though, so please be patient :)

ETA: It didn't take very long for me to find a major flaw in Lowder's argument. Interestingly, he agrees that Jesus was a historical person who was crucified and buried. The hypothesis that he puts forth is what he calls the "reburial hypothesis." His theory does, I admit, offer a logical explanation for how the tomb could have been found empty assuming that Jesus was not resurrected. The problem is that his theory does not take into account the historicity of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. If Jesus did not appear alive to his followers (the Bible claims he appeared to more than 500 followers) then there is no explanation for the drastic change in the disciples behavior, which in turn leaves no explanation for the disciple's passionate preaching about Jesus at the risk of their own lives, which in turn leaves no explanation for the explosive spread of Christianity.

Basically, in order for Lowder's "reburial hypothesis" to be a logical alternative explanation to the empty tomb, he must also propose a logical explanation for the change in the disciple's behavior and the explosive spread of Christianity. I don't see that in this particular article. If you know of an article in which he does put forth such an explanation, please post a link to it because I would be interested to read it.

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 20:55:27.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

04/21/2013 09:08:35 PM · #318

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

... If Jesus did not appear alive to his followers (the Bible claims he appeared to more than 500 followers) ...

I'm not sure I would put much stock in witness accounts. Thousands more people than that have been abducted by aliens.

04/21/2013 09:14:58 PM · #319

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Mike:
you are drawing an irrelevant conclusion.

you can be wrong, just because you believe that God exists does not mean that he can raise the dead, for example.

You are within your right to believe that God is all powerful, you don't need logic to prove it to yourself. Just believe it. However don't say its logical in a attempt to prove it to someone, it is not. There is zero evidence that God exists or even has this ability, its is simply your belief.

Clearly you didn't read all of my post. I specifically explained that logic does not help me maintain a fundamental belief in the existence of God. Additionally, I never said that belief in God is logical.

It's really not even possible to consider this a valid response to my post because you're responding to things that I did not write.

you gave an an example how logic and reason "increase your faith". i simply stated you applied zero logic or reason. you cant use logic or reason to increase your faith.

as pointed out earlier, faith is a belief beyond logic or reason, its to believe no matter what, it can be in a sense, illogical. the more facts or information or reason you attempt to apply, the less faith you have, if you need to convince yourself God exists, you don't have enough faith that he does.

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 21:17:42.

04/21/2013 09:35:02 PM · #320

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... If Jesus did not appear alive to his followers (the Bible claims he appeared to more than 500 followers) ...

I'm not sure I would put much stock in witness accounts. Thousands more people than that have been abducted by aliens.

The number is irrelevant. The point is that Jesus appeared alive to numerous people, and if that didn't happen then there is no logical explanation for the existence of the Christian religion.

Originally posted by Mike:

You still aren't wrapping your head around what I'm saying. I agree that faith is a belief beyond logic or reason. What I keep trying to explain is that various aspects of my faith (i.e., claims of my religion, biblical teachings, etc...) are strongly backed up by logic, and it is those logically sound aspects of my faith (think religion) which helps to increase my faith (think belief).

And your demonstration of how you reached those conclusions was extremely helpful.

04/21/2013 09:50:00 PM · #321

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

What I keep trying to explain is that various aspects of my faith (i.e., claims of my religion, biblical teachings, etc...) are strongly backed up by logic, and it is those logically sound aspects of my faith (think religion) which helps to increase my faith (think belief).

Originally posted by Cory:

What sort of Jesus-Crack have you been smoking son?

:D

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 21:51:06.

04/21/2013 09:54:56 PM · #322

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What I keep trying to explain is that various aspects of my faith (i.e., claims of my religion, biblical teachings, etc...) are strongly backed up by logic, and it is those logically sound aspects of my faith (think religion) which helps to increase my faith (think belief).

And your demonstration of how you reached those conclusions was extremely helpful.

Originally posted by Cory:

What sort of Jesus-Crack have you been smoking son?

:D

You'll have to excuse me... My poor brain-damaged mind didn't allow me to read that post and it appears that my mind is still malfunctioning. I'll let you know when it starts working again and I'm able to read and respond to it.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/21/2013 09:55:52 PM · #323

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

just because someone comes up with a theory doesn't make it logical, it makes it plausible.

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 21:57:07.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/21/2013 09:58:40 PM · #324

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What I keep trying to explain is that various aspects of my faith (i.e., claims of my religion, biblical teachings, etc...) are strongly backed up by logic, and it is those logically sound aspects of my faith (think religion) which helps to increase my faith (think belief).

just because someone comes up with a theory doesn't make it logical, it makes it plausible.

Actually, a theory can be logical and yet not plausible, but a theory that is not logical cannot be plausible.