a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
Honesty,
You are correct I do not have to fear any of those things because I live in a largely secular country where atheism is not persecuted. Even in my country however we still have to fight to stop religious people from imposing their beliefs on those of us that don't share them. Beliefs that you cannot provide any evidence for.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
Honesty,
The problem is that it is you who is making the claim that jesus was a real person and was resurrected, the burden of proof is on you. I am not making any claim about jesus merely stating that I have seen no evidence to convince me he was real or that he was resurrected.
The problem with your claim about Tacitus is that Tacitus was a meticulous historian and yet he only refers to the title christus not to jesus. His reference is only in relation to giving details of the source of the term Christian. His reference to Pontius Pilate also uses the wrong title for Pontius Pilate he wasn't procurator. The fact that a well respected Roman historian has the correct dates for events pertaining to the Roman empire should be of no surprise. What is a surprise is that he didn't know the name Jesus and didn't know Pontius Pilate's title. Perhaps his source for this small anecdote wasn't very reliable. Either way hardly conclusive evidence for jesus and zero evidence that jesus was resurrected.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
I admit I don't have all the answers but that doesn't mean I should accept things for which there is no evidence. If as you say this discussion requires a degree of faith then you have already conceded that your argument is not based on evidence.
The point I am making is that it would be close-minded and foolish to state that you would not be willing to accept that you are wrong if you are presented with empirical evidence that contradicts your beliefs. if you are not prepared to accept that you could be wrong then there isn't a discussion in the first place.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
Honesty,
There is no empirical evidence for either Jesus being real or being resurrected.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
In my opinion (yeah, I have one of those too. I'm sitting on it) each person has the privilege of believing it or not and no one will be able to change their minds no matter what 'evidence' or suppositions they provide.
I would very happily change my mind if I was provided with empirical evidence that I was wrong. In fact I would welcome people providing such evidence. If people choose not to change their mind after being presented with such evidence then they are fools. You are assuming that the default religious position of believing things despite evidence also applies to more rational individuals.
i haven't seen this posted yet.
i was watching the january-don't-educate-yourself-programming and i think we missed the following, at the :31 minute of the show:.
wt now sending portable music devices to malawi so they can sing the new song.
The WBTS are not going to become a consumer electronics company, for a start they would have to employ educated people.
i haven't seen this posted yet.
i was watching the january-don't-educate-yourself-programming and i think we missed the following, at the :31 minute of the show:.
wt now sending portable music devices to malawi so they can sing the new song.
christians, should i attend kingdom hall meetings to discreetly "preach" to jws about the real jesus and the lies of the watchtower?.
.
i plan to go undercover and plant seeds into them.. .
Cryto,
They are just as genuine in their beliefs as you and would make exactly the same claims as you do. They have exactly the same personal testimonies as you do. There is no difference between you and the JWs.
i just worry for my stepkids about their future that way..
Apognophos,
Using the example of jesus does not mean you are comparing yourself to him, it is saying if the son of god wasn't ready until he was thirty then how can I claim that I am so much more mature and ready for that commitment than the son of god was. I think it is the ones who are getting baptised at less than 30 who think they are special.
Obviously this only works if the person you are talking to was inclined to think that mumbling some words and getting a cold dunk was in anyway a meaningful exercise!
christians, should i attend kingdom hall meetings to discreetly "preach" to jws about the real jesus and the lies of the watchtower?.
.
i plan to go undercover and plant seeds into them.. .
Crytojesus,
If there is nothing that would cause you to question your faith then what makes you think that other theists are any less committed to their beliefs?
Perry,
There is nothing in your link that suggests that atheists don't exist. What it says is that some scientists have shown that some atheists have inconsistant beliefs. Personally I don't believe in anything supernatural and none of the examples listed applied to me or indeed to any of the atheists that I know, this would suggest to me that there are at least some atheists that do have consistant beliefs. The fact that religious parents tend to have more children conveniantly forgets that it is education and teaching critical thinking that creates atheists not the the religious beliefs of the parents.
