Originally posted by Alex23
I am religious but I've never followed in blindly.
I've studied philosophy of religion as well as theology, biology and physics.
I constantly question what I believe and what the church wants me to believe.
You claim to have studied philosophy and yet you provide nothing but fallacious arguments that appeal to authority:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex23
Oh Nou...
Ever heard of a guy called NT Wright? He offers plenty of factual evidence regarding Christianity and the New Testament.
Same with William Lane Craig. Not to mention a dozen other philosophers that deal with Christianity and faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Alex23
I have read plenty of books and articles that say otherwise. I mentioned 2 noted theologians that offer such evidence. Can you point me in the direction of a trustworthy article that claims otherwise?
Pardon my bluntness, but being a philosophy student myself, I find it extremely embarrassing that someone who claims to have studied philosophy can fail to recognize the idiocy underlying his arguments. Do you not realize that your "arguments" amount to saying the same thing as "Republican analyst provides evidence that Republican policies are unequivocally the best policies"? You are either a liar or a fool, as many philosophers of religion and theologians tend to be.
Not a single philosopher or theologian can provide factual evidence that the events in the gospels did in fact occur because there simply is evidence to present. "Smart" theologians or religious leaders admit to this and will tell you that in the end you have to take it on faith, which is a ridiculous request, but it is at least honest. Idiots like William Lane Craig go on and on about supposed evidence and make complete asses of themselves in the process. You only accept them as evidence because they seem to support the beliefs you already hold, stop kidding both yourself and us with your "I believe because there's evidence" argumentation. It's clear that it's the other way around. How do I know this? Because no unbiased person could accept 2000 year old, self-referencing documents that are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of the originals, that tell of accounts of people rising from the dead, leaving empty tombs behind that were discovered by women in a patriarchal society as compelling evidence.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. Could you please explain the "evidence" that convinced you so much of the truth of Jesus' resurrection and therefore of the truth of Christianity?
Alex23
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
You are either a liar or a fool, as many philosophers of religion and theologians tend to be.
I'm not a fool, and even if you are a philosophy student you've resorted to calling me a fool and used broad generalizations about my field of study.
woscar
quote:
Originally posted by Alex23
I'm not a fool, and even if you are a philosophy student you've resorted to calling me a fool and used broad generalizations about my field of study.
Do you mind not resorting to red herrings and actually address the points that were made, please?
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by Alex23
I have read plenty of books and articles that say otherwise. I mentioned 2 noted theologians that offer such evidence. Can you point me in the direction of a trustworthy article that claims otherwise?
Theologians? I said before science and philosophy are two completely different things. Let me rephrase. "There is no compelling EMPIRICAL evidence for people rising from the dead." Whatever a book or theologian says about the subject is no more substantiated than a pink elephant orbiting the sun. If people rise from the dead days after death, you certainly have a huge task ahead of you, proving it. Because it sure as hell isn't happening today so any reasonable person can assume it didn't happen 2000 years ago either...
Alex23
What points? All you did in your post was use broad oversimplifications of issues you clearly haven't looked into deeply.
You wrote off William Lane Craig and accused me of only believing what he says because of previous beliefs of mine. Which is completely false as I was an atheist until I looked into Craig/Chesterton/Wright.
Oh, and here's a real red herring:
You're a juggling thunder ****.
See what I did there? :p
woscar
Stop deflecting.
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
You claim to have studied philosophy and yet you provide nothing but fallacious arguments that appeal to authority:
Pardon my bluntness, but being a philosophy student myself, I find it extremely embarrassing that someone who claims to have studied philosophy can fail to recognize the idiocy underlying his arguments. Do you not realize that your "arguments" amount to saying the same thing as "Republican analyst provides evidence that Republican policies are unequivocally the best policies"? You are either a liar or a fool, as many philosophers of religion and theologians tend to be.
Not a single philosopher or theologian can provide factual evidence that the events in the gospels did in fact occur because there simply is evidence to present. "Smart" theologians or religious leaders admit to this and will tell you that in the end you have to take it on faith, which is a ridiculous request, but it is at least honest. Idiots like William Lane Craig go on and on about supposed evidence and make complete asses of themselves in the process. You only accept them as evidence because they seem to support the beliefs you already hold, stop kidding both yourself and us with your "I believe because there's evidence" argumentation. It's clear that it's the other way around. How do I know this? Because no unbiased person could accept 2000 year old, self-referencing documents that are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of the originals, that tell of accounts of people rising from the dead, leaving empty tombs behind that were discovered by women in a patriarchal society as compelling evidence.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. Could you please explain the "evidence" that convinced you so much of the truth of Jesus' resurrection and therefore of the truth of Christianity?
Those points. I especially look forward to reading about the evidence that convinced you.
P.S. Isn't it odd that all the people who publicly defend their faith always claim that they were either never indoctrinated in the faith or used to be atheists? Lee Strobel, Alister McGrath, Josh McDowell, Francis Collins, Kirk Cameron, C.S. Lewis, etc, etc, etc.
Comrade Stalin
I certainly want to believe in God and heaven but can't. It goes against all logic. Talking animals. Ancient myths interpreted literally. Every holy text has its beginnings in ancient oral traditions changed through many generations to suite the prevailing time. With what we know today, no rational person can seriously believe people rise from the dead after brain death.
I think woscar has a point. You can't possibly believe any of this based on scientific, empirical, lab-tested evidence. To say otherwise is to deceive us and yourself. That leaves only the desire to believe, as the only reason, why you believe.
Znack
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
With the construction of some of these arguments, it would appear the same could be said of atheism.
The characteristic of atheists more often is that they change their minds when new evidence appears, instead of being locked to their own opinion.
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by Alex23
There are a lot of smart religious people. Augustine/Aquinas etc.
I don't think it's a character flaw that they were religious, that would be fairly absurd.
Hell, even Darwin was an agnostic :p
Richard Dawkins isn't even 100% atheist.
quote:
Originally posted by Alex23
Actually I do believe it because the evidence is compelling.
Don't make so many assumptions, kinda makes you look moronic.
What, like assuming there's a giant man in the sky who'll smite you if you eat meat on a Friday? Or is that called "faith"? :haha:
