The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

How do you know that? :laughing:

[quote]As I went on to explain:

[quote]Since atheists are already as predisposed against belief in the supernatural as Christians are to belief in it, it doesn't matter if I can demonstrate that Jesus really lived, really died, was really buried, and the tomb was really empty; for the atheist there is always an explanation for the empty tomb which has more credible explanatory power than a supernatural event.[/quote]

Surely you wouldn’t disagree with that?[/quote]

No, but if an atheist saw a bright light descend from heaven and breathe life into the corpse of Jesus Christ, then he would at least take the supernatural theory more seriously.

If it’s a bunch of hearsay and heavily edited books from millennia ago, promoted by a clergy that has proven itself venal and brutal on many occasions, then they would be quite right to look for alternative explanations to a miracle.

BJ, you need to understand that assertions of fact (as yours were), especially in the logical form ‘X because Y’ (as yours were), are exactly what you claim they are not. This is a simple matter of language. When you say ‘X because of Y’, you are asserting a logical relationship between X and Y, such that X is the result of Y; you are claiming that Y is the cause of X. No one said you were offering any evidence or logical proofs; I have no idea why you keep saying ‘I did not offer evidence or logical proofs’.

I gave it to you, twice. It then appeared that you didn’t know what ‘falsifiability’ means, so I gave you a link to it. It then turned out that you ‘don’t do links’, so I explained what falsifiability is. Are you now asking me to repeat my previous explanations of how falsifiability relates to my argument, or are you saying that you still don’t know what ‘falsifiability’ means?

I already have, several times.

We have already been through this.

Or assume he was hallucinating, which would be a more likely explanation, would it not?

Yes, I quite understand. I would feel the same way.

fortigurn is a great dancer, I hear. Excellent footwork.

Hence him making every other poster here look like an amateur philosopher - which they are.

bob, unless I attribute it to you then I am not quoting or misquoting you. If it’s not attributed to you, and it’s clearly not what you wrote, then that’s not a misquote. That’s simply me writing something you didn’t write.[/quote]

But in “your” post it says "bob said…

Does that not attribute the words to me? This is all quite technical I realize. Try to concentrate, it’s relaxing.

Hence him making every other poster here look like an amateur philosopher - which they are.[/quote]

I’ll have a double hermeneutic with that, no ice.

I think the reason Fortigurn is ‘winning’ is that there is, fundamentally, no rumble. Fortigurn is wearing his Popperian hat and there is nothing to challenge. As a result, Big John and Fortigurn are now arguing about arguing. And bob and Fortigurn are sounding like a married couple.

bob, unless I attribute it to you then I am not quoting or misquoting you. If it’s not attributed to you, and it’s clearly not what you wrote, then that’s not a misquote. That’s simply me writing something you didn’t write.[/quote]

But in “your” post it says "bob said…

Does that not attribute the words to me? This is all quite technical I realize. Try to concentrate, it’s relaxing.[/quote]

Not much about the resurrection in this thread.

Hence him making every other poster here look like an amateur philosopher - which they are.[/quote]
I have to admit, I don’t understand WTH he’s on about half the time, but I agree with him, because we’re on the same side. :wink:

Like Caesar, the man’s a genius. :thumbsup:

But I still don’t get why non-believers give enough of a shit to even argue about it. If they’re right, we all go into nothingness and the resurrection etc etc is all moot. They 'win" but no one really knows that they did.
If the Christians are right, we go to Heaven, you (the general non-believing crowd) go to Hell and we (presumably) get to laugh, point and say, “Told you so, motherf***ers!”

Going way back into the thread here, but I’ve never come across this belief before. Is it held in some denominations? I was always taught that the three days were Jesus going down into the basement and unloading a can of whup-ass on Satan- the Harrowing of Hell. Jesus broke open the Gates of Hell and led the righteous of the Old Testament out of captivity and up to Heaven.

BJ, you need to understand that assertions of fact (as yours were), especially in the logical form ‘X because Y’ (as yours were), are exactly what you claim they are not. This is a simple matter of language. When you say ‘X because of Y’, you are asserting a logical relationship between X and Y, such that X is the result of Y; you are claiming that Y is the cause of X. No one said you were offering any evidence or logical proofs; I have no idea why you keep saying ‘I did not offer evidence or logical proofs’.[/quote]

You are talking but you’re not saying anything, really. I did not give logical proofs in my first post, only in later posts to defend positions taken. There was some logical interconnectedness among my original statements but it was not a formal logical argument. If you say it is, then show my first post and how it is a logical argument. Bring it to the present here and now, and show what you mean. Otherwise you are just being long-winded.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

I gave it to you, twice. It then appeared that you didn’t know what ‘falsifiability’ means, so I gave you a link to it. It then turned out that you ‘don’t do links’, so I explained what falsifiability is. Are you now asking me to repeat my previous explanations of how falsifiability relates to my argument, or are you saying that you still don’t know what ‘falsifiability’ means?[/quote]

I knew that back in high school, about 30 years ago. Your assumption that I don’t is frankly insulting, as you seem to feel that you are more aware of the material than other posters, yet you are strangely unable to make a coherent argument.

Yes, I am asking you to give me the Cliff Notes version of your argument, including falsifiability.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

I already have, several times.[/quote]

Not really. Your argument is very unclear. Why not organize it into few simple sentences?

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

We have already been through this.[/quote]

That is not an acceptable answer.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Or assume he was hallucinating, which would be a more likely explanation, would it not?[/quote]

I said he would take it more seriously.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Yes, I quite understand. I would feel the same way.[/quote]

Well,that’s why many people don’t believe in the resurrection.

Hence him making every other poster here look like an amateur philosopher - which they are.[/quote]

I have no respect for the style of philosophy which is all based on references to other things and does not bravely state it’s own vision, in a way that others can quickly apprehend. This is a cunning form of philosophy, not an inspiring one. And being condescending to others is no service to them. Fortigurn’s philosophical style seems to serve him better than it serves the truth.

Hence him making every other poster here look like an amateur philosopher - which they are.[/quote]

I have no respect for the style of philosophy which is all based on references to other things and does not bravely state it’s own vision, in a way that others can quickly apprehend. This is a cunning form of philosophy, not an inspiring one. And being condescending to others is no service to them. Fortigurn’s philosophical style seems to serve him better than it serves the truth.[/quote]

I think Fortigurn has been fairly clear - he has religious beliefs that he openly states are not based on evidential proof. The ‘style of philosophy’ he linked you too was that of science.

[quote=“bismarck”]
But I still don’t get why non-believers give enough of a shit to even argue about it. If they’re right, we all go into nothingness and the resurrection etc etc is all moot. They 'win" but no one really knows that they did.
If the Christians are right, we go to Heaven, you (the general non-believing crowd) go to Hell and we (presumably) get to laugh, point and say, “Told you so, motherf***ers!”[/quote]

That’s so annoying, we have to give you some shit about it now while we can.

I suggested “A Critique of Pure Reason”, which happens to be one of the most intense philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant, as an indication that there are other philosophical writings that indicate the possibility (logical possibility) that a “higher being” exists other that the so dreaded Bible.
Bob’s response that he read it in high school indicates clearly that he has no interest in anyting other than his uninformed opinion. Uninformed I said. Quite right. He calls himself a humanist and he has no idea who Potter is. He is not a humanist. He is an ati-christianity bigot who got annoyed over the idea that we were unhappy about his writings in the Happy Easter thread.
I have no doubt that you are a lot more solid in your approach Big John, but I do feel that you have done nothing other than attack fortigurn on what he said and you have not backed it up with anything other than your disbelief of the supernatural or ramblings on the semantics of what was said. The notion that Christians do not believe in science is rubbish. There are many of us who critically read a variety of writings and make judgements accordingly. If science has an issue and changes its stance, it is called improvement and shows the strenght of scientific method. If religion does that it is consider a weakness and proof that it is wrong, rubbish and delusional. Almost like the global warming debate. Why is that?

bob, which post are you talking about? Please link to it directly.

I agree with that.

Going way back into the thread here, but I’ve never come across this belief before. Is it held in some denominations? I was always taught that the three days were Jesus going down into the basement and unloading a can of whup-ass on Satan- the Harrowing of Hell. Jesus broke open the Gates of Hell and led the righteous of the Old Testament out of captivity and up to Heaven.[/quote]

The ‘harrowing of hell’ is a later Christian invention which isn’t found in the New Testament. I don’t think it dates any earlier than the late 2nd century. The idea that Christ went to hell and suffered agonies in payment for the sins of the world, is also a later theological development; I haven’t checked, but I would assume it was invented only once the concept of penal substitution had become well established in the early medieval era.

How many times do I have to point out that no one is saying you gave any logical proofs? I have said this three times now. Why do you keep pointing this out, when no one disagrees with you?

I have done that several times. Any time you make the argument ‘X because of Y’, you are making a logical argument. You have a premise (Y), and you have a conclusion (X). This is not a logical proof, it is a logical form of argumentation. I have no idea why you are denying this. Why are you denying this?

I didn’t assume you didn’t know it, you asked me to explain it in my own words, so I explained it in my own words.

I gave the Cliff’s Notes version of my argument here. I also linked to a very simple explanation of why I believe, here. I also gave you a Cliff’s Notes explanation of falsifiability, and you dismissed it saying you didn’t want to hear about other people’s ideas. Please explain exactly what it is you want, because when I give you what you claim you want, you say it’s what you don’t want. Which argument do you want me to give a Cliff’s Notes version of, and what do you want me to say about falsifiability in relation to it?

I have organized it into a few simple sentences; here. To save you clicking on the link, here it is:

No. I believe it to be true and I would claim it is true. I would not claim there was proof it was true. bob asked who here believes in the resurrection. That question didn’t require a lengthy answer citing the scholarly literature, it only required me to say ‘I do’.

If your ‘Why?’ means ‘Why do you believe in the resurrection’, not ‘Why didn’t you cite scholarly literature in your answer to bob?’ (which is what I thought it meant), my answer is that I find the Bible as a whole convincing as an explanation of the universe I see around me, and for that reason I am predisposed towards credulity when it comes to its historical claims (such as the resurrection). For more details on why I believe what I believe, see here.[/quote]

You say that is ‘very unclear’. Tempo Gain says ‘Also I think he does make a fine explanation of his position here:’, Charlie Jack says ‘I agree he states his case well in the post you linked to’, and antarcticbeach says ‘I think Fortigurn has been fairly clear’.

I am not interested in whether or not you find it acceptable. I am not going to repeat what I have said several times, just because you don’t read it when I write it. When I’ve said something three times and you haven’t addressed it, or you keep asking the same question, I’m not going to say it a fourth time.

Why would he?

Naturally!

Nor do I. I have stated my own vision directly, and in simple terms which others have been perfectly able to understand. Here is the latest example:

Thank you. I agree I have been fairly clear; I have some religious beliefs which are based on evidential proof, and other religious beliefs which are based on a combination of evidence (not evidential proof), and faith. The resurrection is in the latter category.

Quite. I was surprised to see BJ denigrating science.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

How many times do I have to point out that no one is saying you gave any logical proofs? I have said this three times now. Why do you keep pointing this out, when no one disagrees with you?[/quote]

On the contrary. People =including yourself originally, and later the Chief, said that what I presented is a logical argument. A logical argument consists of a conclusion and premises meant to support or prove. I never did this, and I am only denying it because this mistake was made. Why don’t you take your own advice and read the earlier posts before saying that no one said this. Or are you hair-splitting between proofs and proofs from premises?

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

I have done that several times. Any time you make the argument ‘X because of Y’, you are making a logical argument. You have a premise (Y), and you have a conclusion (X). This is not a logical proof, it is a logical form of argumentation. I have no idea why you are denying this. Why are you denying this?[/quote]

Why don’t you Google this “the difference between an argument and an explanation” and then get back to me, OK?

I am happy because it is raining again. This is not an argument, it is an explanation. The two are not the same. I can also add, " I like the rain" and it is still an explanation. If you said: “John is happy because it is raining again. Therefore, he must like the rain.” That would be an argument.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

I didn’t assume you didn’t know it, you asked me to explain it in my own words, so I explained it in my own words.[/quote]

I asked you to apply it to your argument, which you still haven’t done plainly in a response to me. You said in your last post to me that you explained falsifiability in Cliff’s Notes format because you felt I didn’t understand the concept. Check your post.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]
I gave the Cliff’s Notes version of my argument here. I also linked to a very simple explanation of why I believe, here. I also gave you a Cliff’s Notes explanation of falsifiability, and you dismissed it saying you didn’t want to hear about other people’s ideas. Please explain exactly what it is you want, because when I give you what you claim you want, you say it’s what you don’t want. Which argument do you want me to give a Cliff’s Notes version of, and what do you want me to say about falsifiability in relation to it?[/quote]

My point is that you should simply state in your next reply to me how you believe the concept of falsifiability to be relevant to the debate here. That is, integrate it into your own ideas within your reply so that the flow of argument is clear to all without constantly hopping back and forth to earlier posts. This is an appropriate way to debate someone in an online forum, IMHO.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]
If your ‘Why?’ means ‘Why do you believe in the resurrection’, not ‘Why didn’t you cite scholarly literature in your answer to bob?’ (which is what I thought it meant), my answer is that I find the Bible as a whole convincing as an explanation of the universe I see around me, and for that reason I am predisposed towards credulity when it comes to its historical claims (such as the resurrection). For more details on why I believe what I believe, see here.[/quote]

Finally! Was that so hard?

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

I am not interested in whether or not you find it acceptable. I am not going to repeat what I have said several times, just because you don’t read it when I write it. When I’ve said something three times and you haven’t addressed it, or you keep asking the same question, I’m not going to say it a fourth time.[/quote]

I think that’s an odd position to take, considering how much stuff you do write down. Maybe it would be easier if we debated one or two points at a time,instead of seven or eight? Or would you be willing to occasionally restate a major point as part of an ongoing debate, just for the sake of flow. That would enable people to “follow the puck” better.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Why would he?[/quote]

Because then the theory that some exterior force resuscitated a dead man would have some basis in direct evidence to him.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Naturally![/quote]

Of course:those who do believe it do so originally because it is in the Bible and they were taught the Bible is the word of God. That’s my explanation. Later, they find their own complex and often bizarre ways to rationalize it because they could not feel happy or safe without that spiritual anchor.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Nor do I. I have stated my own vision directly, and in simple terms which others have been perfectly able to understand. Here is the latest example:

Thank you. I agree I have been fairly clear; I have some religious beliefs which are based on evidential proof, and other religious beliefs which are based on a combination of evidence (not evidential proof), and faith. The resurrection is in the latter category.

Quite. I was surprised to see BJ denigrating science.[/quote]

That’s a load of tripe. I haven’t done any such thing, That is pure word twisting, and not sincere as far as I can tell.
And don’t call me BJ, Fart-again! The name is BigJohn.

Obviously I disagree with Fortigurn’s beliefs and style or argumentation. However,nothing in that makes me believe he is ill-willed or intellectually dishonest, beyond the occasional snarky Anglican-tippler style crack, which obviously I can tolerate. I look forward to having a glass of Baal’s blood with him at the next HH. He is probably a loving and kind person in real life, and obviously has read a few books now and then,.

(BTW, did you know happy hour was originally a pagan festival? :laughing: )

:laughing:

It would be nice to review what my comments were actually. Can you provide a link?

Fortigurn: I’m done. I think I’ve got nothing more to say. To continue now would only be to prove my stubbornness! This is something I’ve already done on the Flob.

Can we agree to disagree? As friends? Let’s stop boring these people to death. What say you?

:laughing:

It would be nice to review what my comments were actually. Can you provide a link?[/quote]

It is all from this thread but, how about we follow the lead from Big John, you think I am a delusional Christian and I think you are a anti-christianity bigot and one day we have a beer and talk about something else like Trump running for president?
:beer:

:laughing:

It would be nice to review what my comments were actually. Can you provide a link?[/quote]

It is all from this thread but, how about we follow the lead from Big John, you think I am a delusional Christian and I think you are a anti-christianity bigot and one day we have a beer and talk about something else like Trump running for president?
:beer:[/quote]

While poetry is not usually ironic, irony is ALWAYS poetic (alas, the vaguries of “be!”) I will agree to disagree, agree to agree, disagree to disagree or anything else that might strike my fancy, for I am, in the last analysis, a Daoist and certain that Donald trump will make for a fine president…

Beer is good.