Thomas The Skeptic - Something For Ironhorse

[mymistake]

 

You are making the assumption that skepticism applied to Christianity must always reach the conclusion that

Christianity is false. 

 

That is your opinion but it is not mine.

 

 

Oh?  Do share with us how skepticism applied to Christianity reaches the conclusion that Christianity is not false.  I'm sure we are all looking forward to reading this.   

[bornagainathiest]

1.  Answer this question truthfully. Did you get to see Jesus' wounds in his hands and in his side before BEFORE you believed?

 

No 

 

Then how was your decision to believe in the resurrected Jesus a skeptical, evidence-based one?  As was Thomas' in John 20 : 24 - 29?

 

2.  Did the Corinthians, the Romans, the Galatians or any of the believers in Jerusalem and Israel ever do what Thomas did and see the evidence of Jesus' resurrection BEFORE they believed?

 

I really can't answer because I don't know the individual people and their experiences.

 

According to your Christian Baptist doctrine, after he ascended into heaven, did Jesus present the wounds in his hands, feet and side to any of the listed people (except Paul) BEFORE they believed in him?  Y / N ?

 

3.  Did Damaris, at the Areopagus?

 

I don't know.

 

According to your Christian Baptist doctrine, after he ascended into heaven, did Jesus present the wounds in his hands, feet and side to Damaris BEFORE she believed in him?  Y / N ?

 

4.  Did Paul and Barnabus' jailer?

 

Paul did record seeing Jesus in a vision.  

 

The jailer I guess not.

 

So did the jailer make the same kind of skeptical, evidence-based decision to believe in the resurrected Jesus as Thomas did - on the basis of seeing Christ's injuries?  As described in John 20 : 24 -29?  Y / N ?

 

5.  Did anyone?

 

Again I can't really answer.

 

According to your Christian Baptist doctrine, after he ascended into heaven, did Jesus present the wounds in his hands, feet and side to anyone (except Paul) BEFORE they believed in him?  Y / N ?

 

6.  You see how this works?  (Meaning, the default position for ALL skeptics is non-belief, not belief.)

 

No, as I have said this before that one cannot say that ALL SKEPTICS will come to a conclusion of non-belief.

 

Non-belief is NOT the conclusion that skeptics end up with - it's their starting point - before they examine the evidence.  

They then draw a conclusion, based upon what that evidence.  Just as Thomas did in John 20 : 24 -29.  

Do you see how this works, Ironhorse?

 

Please answer truthfully.

 

6a. So you agree that all of the people mentioned in # 2 were not skeptics?

 

I don't know.

 

According to your Baptist doctrine of Jesus' ascension, did Jesus offer anyone other than the apostles Thomas and Paul the chance of examining his wounds for themselves and making a skeptical, evidence-based decision, when it came to putting their faith in him?

 

6b. So you agree that you were not a skeptic when you came to believe in Jesus?

 

When i came to accept Christ, I will agree I was no longer a skeptic but

I reached that point after approximately ten years of reading and studying

with the eyes of a skeptic.

 

How can you be a skeptic about Jesus when you first accepted him by faith?

The starting position for all skeptics is non-belief, not belief.  It's not the end position, conclusion or even an interim stage.  Please answer the question truthfully, Ironhorse.

 

How can you be a skeptic about Jesus when you first accepted him by faith?

 

7.  Do you see what the Antonym (opposite of) skepticism is?

 

Belief

 

How can you have faith in Jesus AND be also be a skeptic about him at the same time, when faith and skepticism are contradictions of each other?

 

8.  And since you believed in Christ without seeing any physical evidence of his resurrection for yourself, was your decision to accept him as your savior and lord... a skeptical one?

 

See my answer to 6b

 

Were you a skeptic, as per the apostle Thomas, as described in John 20 : 24 - 29, on the day you believed in Jesus by faith?  Y / N ?

 

9.  Your belief that the Protestant reformation allowed the rise of science in Europe.  Did you skeptically examine this claim and Kobe's assertions?

 

Yes

 

10.  You were encouraged by your parents to question everything.

So were you practicing this (skepticism) when you believed without seeing that Jesus was raised form the dead?

 

As I have said many times before, I have an attitude of questioning. Yes. my parents encouraged me.

Again see 6b

 

How can you have a skeptical, evidence-based attitude of questioning (as per Thomas, in John 20 : 24 - 29) about everything if you believe in Jesus by faith?  

 

11. So what kind of skeptical thinking were you doing when you believed (blindly) that Jesus was raised from the dead?

 

Again 6b

 

Were you thinking skeptically and making an evidence-based decision, as per the apostle Thomas, as described in John 20 : 24 -29, on the day you came to believe in Jesus by faith?  Y / N ?

 

12. So you didn't follow Thomas' process of skeptical thinking when you cam to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead?

 

I don't know all the processes Thomas used.

 

I didn't ask you about ALL the processes Thomas used.

I asked you ONLY about John 20 : 24 - 29.  Now please answer the question truthfully, referring only to Thomas' process of skeptical thinking, as described in John 20 : 24 -29.  Please answer Yes or No.  

 

13.  You're driven to find out the truth.

Except for when you choose to blindly believe the untestable 'truth' of the Bible regarding Jesus' resurrection?

 

Jesus spoke in a prayer about those who will believe but never saw. I am one of them.

 

Then how was your decision to believe a skeptical, evidence-based one, as per Thomas' example in John 20 : 24 - 29?

 

14.  Quite sure you're a skeptic?

 

I'm no longer a skeptic concerning the Christian faith. 

 

Then how can you honestly and truthfully say that you question everything, as your parents taught you to do?

.

.

.

[RipVanWinkle]

Ironhorse: You still didn't answer my questions: 

 

Do you think you can objectively analyze the biblical claims for Xianity while still holding onto the belief that jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead?

 

 

Also the folowing questions.

 The only true answer is either yes or no.  It is easy to see that some things in your responses simply don't fit. How old were you when you first believed in Xtianity? How old were you when you skeptically evaluated you faith in Xtianity. At that point had you deconverted? And at what level of education? Lastly, for how long  did you objectively study Xtianiy without any belief in it?  bill

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just out of curiosity, Ironhorse:  What's with all the bold print lately?  Are you angry about something?

[ironhorse]

Just out of curiosity, Ironhorse:  What's with all the bold print lately?  Are you angry about something?

 

 

I put my answers in bold to help readers distinguish them from the questions.

[mymistake]

 

Just out of curiosity, Ironhorse:  What's with all the bold print lately?  Are you angry about something?

 

 

I put my answers in bold to help readers distinguish them from the questions.

 

 

 

I don't care if you put it in bold or use blue or whatever emphasis you wish.  Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

[bornagainathiest]

Yes please, IH!

 

And if you could also answer my questions (in red) too.

[RipVanWinkle]

I guess the RNP's question was a lot easier to answer, mymistake. If we could actually get a responsive answer to bornagainatheist's question, we would have a first from an Xtian on this site.But I seriously doubt that that will happen. Because it is clear to me that his basis for claiming his decision to accept faith as a rational position is totally bogus. His claims of being objective are analogous to a  blind man claiming to see clearly. Prove me wrong, ironhorse. bill

[Neverlandrut]

"Because you have seen me, you have believed;

blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

~John 20:29

 

If the book says it, it must be true.  Given that one definition of "blessed" is "happy,"  this verse maybe true.  But that does not mean that the content of the belief is actually true.  You can be very happy believing something false. 

[mymistake]

 

 

You are making the assumption that skepticism applied to Christianity must always reach the conclusion that

Christianity is false. 

 

That is your opinion but it is not mine.

 

 

Oh?  Do share with us how skepticism applied to Christianity reaches the conclusion that Christianity is not false.  I'm sure we are all looking forward to reading this.   

 

 

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, Ironhorse:  What's with all the bold print lately?  Are you angry about something?

 

 

I put my answers in bold to help readers distinguish them from the questions.

 

 

 

I don't care if you put it in bold or use blue or whatever emphasis you wish.  Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

 

 

 

Well surprise, surprise!  No response of any kind from Ironhorse.  I guess the good Larwd has other plans for our Christian missionary.

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

You are making the assumption that skepticism applied to Christianity must always reach the conclusion that

Christianity is false. 

 

That is your opinion but it is not mine.

 

 

Oh?  Do share with us how skepticism applied to Christianity reaches the conclusion that Christianity is not false.  I'm sure we are all looking forward to reading this.   

 

 

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, Ironhorse:  What's with all the bold print lately?  Are you angry about something?

 

 

I put my answers in bold to help readers distinguish them from the questions.

 

 

 

I don't care if you put it in bold or use blue or whatever emphasis you wish.  Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

 

 

 

Well surprise, surprise!  No response of any kind from Ironhorse.  I guess the good Larwd has other plans for our Christian missionary.

 

 

"Well surprise, surprise!  No response of any kind from Ironhorse.  I guess the good Larwd has other plans for our Christian missionary."

 

 

I have been responding.

 

I'm here. 

 

How long I would remain here was in doubt by some here when I first joined the Lion's Den.

 

I made a reply that I was here to stay as long I was allowed to stay.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

You are making the assumption that skepticism applied to Christianity must always reach the conclusion that

Christianity is false. 

 

That is your opinion but it is not mine.

 

 

Oh?  Do share with us how skepticism applied to Christianity reaches the conclusion that Christianity is not false.  I'm sure we are all looking forward to reading this.   

 

 

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, Ironhorse:  What's with all the bold print lately?  Are you angry about something?

 

 

I put my answers in bold to help readers distinguish them from the questions.

 

 

 

I don't care if you put it in bold or use blue or whatever emphasis you wish.  Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

 

 

 

Well surprise, surprise!  No response of any kind from Ironhorse.  I guess the good Larwd has other plans for our Christian missionary.

 

 

"Well surprise, surprise!  No response of any kind from Ironhorse.  I guess the good Larwd has other plans for our Christian missionary."

 

 

I have been responding.

 

I'm here. 

 

How long I would remain here was in doubt by some here when I first joined the Lion's Den.

 

I made a reply that I was here to stay as long I was allowed to stay.

 

Mr. "Don't I Obfuscate and Avoid Questions Well?" speaks.

 

Ironhorse does this so often, so frequently, so consistently.  It must be a character trait.  Perhaps it is genetic.  No, that is unlikely.  It must be a learned behavior.

 

[mymistake]

 

I have been responding.

 

I'm here. 

 

How long I would remain here was in doubt by some here when I first joined the Lion's Den.

 

I made a reply that I was here to stay as long I was allowed to stay.

 

 

 

 

Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

[ironhorse]

 

 

I have been responding.

 

I'm here. 

 

How long I would remain here was in doubt by some here when I first joined the Lion's Den.

 

I made a reply that I was here to stay as long I was allowed to stay.

 

 

 

 

Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

 

 

 

I have.

 

Several times I have.

 

I have said that I reached a point in my study (my examination) of the Christian faith where I decided it was true.

 

At that point i took the leap. Not a blind leap. I had done my skeptical study, but one based on what I had concluded

from my questioning.

 

You and others may reach different conclusions.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

I have been responding.

 

I'm here. 

 

How long I would remain here was in doubt by some here when I first joined the Lion's Den.

 

I made a reply that I was here to stay as long I was allowed to stay.

 

 

 

 

Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

 

 

 

I have.

 

Several times I have.

 

I have said that I reached a point in my study (my examination) of the Christian faith where I decided it was true.

 

At that point i took the leap. Not a blind leap. I had done my skeptical study, but one based on what I had concluded

from my questioning.

 

You and others may reach different conclusions.

 

 

You told us what your conclusion was, sure, but not how you reached that conclusion.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

I have been responding.

 

I'm here. 

 

How long I would remain here was in doubt by some here when I first joined the Lion's Den.

 

I made a reply that I was here to stay as long I was allowed to stay.

 

 

 

 

Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

 

 

 

I have.

 

Several times I have.

 

I have said that I reached a point in my study (my examination) of the Christian faith where I decided it was true.

 

At that point i took the leap. Not a blind leap. I had done my skeptical study, but one based on what I had concluded

from my questioning.

 

You and others may reach different conclusions.

 

 

 

Ah, so skepticism applied to Christianity arrives at the conclusion that Christianity is false and you are having trouble admitting the truth.  Why does truth give you so much trouble?

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

 

I have been responding.

 

I'm here. 

 

How long I would remain here was in doubt by some here when I first joined the Lion's Den.

 

I made a reply that I was here to stay as long I was allowed to stay.

 

 

 

 

Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

 

 

 

I have.

 

Several times I have.

 

I have said that I reached a point in my study (my examination) of the Christian faith where I decided it was true.

 

At that point i took the leap. Not a blind leap. I had done my skeptical study, but one based on what I had concluded

from my questioning.

 

You and others may reach different conclusions.

 

 

 

Ah, so skepticism applied to Christianity arrives at the conclusion that Christianity is false and you are having trouble admitting the truth.  Why does truth give you so much trouble?

 

 

 

Why do you keep insisting that people examining a subject must always reach the same conclusion?

 

Each person has a lot of inner explosions going on.

 

Some may reach a different conclusion.

[mymistake]

 

Why do you keep insisting that people examining a subject must always reach the same conclusion?

 

 

 

I don't assume that.  I gave you plenty of opportunity to make your case for alternatives.  If you had evidence or could make a logical argument then why didn't you step up?

 

 

 

Each person has a lot of inner explosions going on.

 

Some may reach a different conclusion.

 

That is not how logic works.

 

Your claim that you reached the conclusion that Christianity is true by applying skepticism is like claiming that one can drive from New York City to Paris.  Then when pressed admitting: "Well you drive to the airport, leap onto a plane and then land in Paris.  That is how you drive to Paris."

 

Using skepticism does not involve bringing skepticism to a screeching halt and them making a leap of faith.

 

 

You are not being truthful and it is your religion that is driving you to not be truthful.  What does that say about Christianity?

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

I have been responding.

 

I'm here. 

 

How long I would remain here was in doubt by some here when I first joined the Lion's Den.

 

I made a reply that I was here to stay as long I was allowed to stay.

 

 

 

 

Could you please explain how skepticism applied to Christianity can arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is not false?

 

 

 

I have.

 

Several times I have.

 

I have said that I reached a point in my study (my examination) of the Christian faith where I decided it was true.

 

At that point i took the leap. Not a blind leap. I had done my skeptical study, but one based on what I had concluded

from my questioning.

 

You and others may reach different conclusions.

 

 

 

Ah, so skepticism applied to Christianity arrives at the conclusion that Christianity is false and you are having trouble admitting the truth.  Why does truth give you so much trouble?

 

 

 

Why do you keep insisting that people examining a subject must always reach the same conclusion?

 

Each person has a lot of inner explosions going on.

 

Some may reach a different conclusion.

 

I think the point is that you reached your conclusion without applying the logic inherent in skepticism. If you had conducted a skeptical inquiry, you would have been led to reject the Bible as the word of God. Instead of applying logic to the issues, you accept magical thinking. You simply accept your religion on faith. 

[ironhorse]

 

 

Why do you keep insisting that people examining a subject must always reach the same conclusion?

 

 

 

I don't assume that.  I gave you plenty of opportunity to make your case for alternatives.  If you had evidence or could make a logical argument then why didn't you step up?

 

 

 

Each person has a lot of inner explosions going on.

 

Some may reach a different conclusion.

 

That is not how logic works.

 

Your claim that you reached the conclusion that Christianity is true by applying skepticism is like claiming that one can drive from New York City to Paris.  Then when pressed admitting: "Well you drive to the airport, leap onto a plane and then land in Paris.  That is how you drive to Paris."

 

Using skepticism does not involve bringing skepticism to a screeching halt and them making a leap of faith.

 

 

You are not being truthful and it is your religion that is driving you to not be truthful.  What does that say about Christianity?

 

 

"You are not being truthful and it is your religion that is driving you to not be truthful.  What does that say about Christianity?"

 

 

For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists.

 

Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages.

 

Keep going with it.

 

I did.

[mymistake]

 

 

For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists.

 

Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages.

 

Keep going with it.

 

I did.

 

 

 

Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway".  That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism.

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists.

 

Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages.

 

Keep going with it.

 

I did.

 

 

 

Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway".  That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism.

 

 

You insists on concrete evidence.

 

I believe there is a point where the concrete ends.

 

This is the point of decision. 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists.

 

Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages.

 

Keep going with it.

 

I did.

 

 

 

Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway".  That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism.

 

 

You insists on concrete evidence.

 

I believe there is a point where the concrete ends.

 

This is the point of decision. 

 

 

 

Christianity fails long before that point.  Christianity fails at almost every point it can be tested.

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

 

 

For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists.

 

Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages.

 

Keep going with it.

 

I did.

 

 

 

Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway".  That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism.

 

 

You insists on concrete evidence.

 

I believe there is a point where the concrete ends.

 

This is the point of decision. 

 

 

 

Christianity fails long before that point.  Christianity fails at almost every point it can be tested.

 

 

 

That is your conclusion.

 

Not mine.

 

I'm not trashing you. I don't really know you,

 

We just disagree at this point.

[mymistake]

 

That is your conclusion.

 

Not mine.

 

I'm not trashing you. I don't really know you,

 

We just disagree at this point.

 

 

 

 

Except my conclusion is based on all the available evidence and your conclusion ignores any evidence that conflicts with it.  Aside from that small detail we simply disagree.

 

God is imaginary:

http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm

 

 

 

.