How Do Atheist Deal With Death?

[NotBlinded]

Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today.

Did he now?

 

Besides, back then they believed the Gospels were written by the names they've been given, but it isn't so.

 

It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection.

It is hearsay, since it's not the 500 people who writes the letter we're reading, but Paul's recollection of what the 500 people told him. That is the definition of hearsay. Paul tells on Mary, Mary tells on Vera, Vera tells on Bob, Bob tells on Philip... It's not the same as the direct accord.

 

Can I ask you, is Luke an eyewitness account?

Luke did write an account based on those who were eyewitnesses. If these accounts in I Corinthians 15 are hearsay why did the authorities in Jerusalem have to bribe the soldiers and why didn't they produce the body of Christ. Its well established the disciples were in no position mentally to steal it either.

There was once a person reading a book and keep insisting that the caracter in the book was real. I would tell them, "No, this is just a story. It isn't real". They would then look to the book and show me where it says that person was born, "See! This person is real! It says so right here! How can they be born and not be real"?

 

[Shyone]

Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection.

Oh please! Your 500 people is also hearsay. Do you have anything from these 500 people...any statements or anything?

Two points about this:

 

1. Paul spoke of 500 witnesses - but he may have lied. His "testimony" about the 500 witnesses is all the evidence there is of 500 witnesses. To then claim that the "500" (not 499 or 501, but exactly 500) witnesses are evidence of jesus resurrection is nonsense. If I said there were 1,000 witnesses that would have testified that the 500 lied, does that overrule the 500? I just wrote it. Can you disprove it?

2. There are accounts of Jesus resurrection that start simply and grow increasingly complex. Same for the crucifixion (what was written on the cross?). Remember that the end of Mark was a late interpolation. So there were a couple of witnesses, several, 12, and then 500. The story grows and grows and grows, like Paul's nose.

 

There is legend growing before your eyes. Mixed up stories that elaborate and get more and more detailed and complicated, with better stuff on the cross, more people as witnesses, and changing from a man into a god.

[Guest amazed]

 

No. However we have the 4 gospel accounts and their letters which attest to the resurrection. Again, in a court of law this would be sufficent.

 

It would not be sufficient. 4 accounts of people claiming 500 people witnessed something would not be sufficient at all. In fact, eyewitness accounts alone are not sufficient for anything! There needs to be phyiscal evidence to back it up and there isn't any.

 

Even historical events, which are held to a lower standard than evidence in a courtroom, have to have more substance to be declared actual events than what we have for Jesus' resurrection. And usually with historical events, only the physical evidence is determined fact. You bring up JFK's assassination. He was assassinated: fact. Who did it and why are up for speculation and can have evidence brought up in favor of different theories but they are not fact. The eyewitness accounts as to why or who are not sufficient to give us any more facts than the physical evidence provided because they are unreliable. Exceedingly ancient, disputed and possibly corrupted accounts, such as what you have in the bible, are in no way sufficient evidence. Not in historical documentation or in a courtroom. Its called mythology, legend, folk lore.

Eyewitness accounts are used in courts all the time to convict people of crimes. Since you doubt Jesus existed how would you go about proving that Ceasar crossed the Rubicon river?

[Guest amazed]

Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection.

Oh please! Your 500 people is also hearsay. Do you have anything from these 500 people...any statements or anything?

Two points about this:

 

1. Paul spoke of 500 witnesses - but he may have lied. His "testimony" about the 500 witnesses is all the evidence there is of 500 witnesses. To then claim that the "500" (not 499 or 501, but exactly 500) witnesses are evidence of jesus resurrection is nonsense. If I said there were 1,000 witnesses that would have testified that the 500 lied, does that overrule the 500? I just wrote it. Can you disprove it?

2. There are accounts of Jesus resurrection that start simply and grow increasingly complex. Same for the crucifixion (what was written on the cross?). Remember that the end of Mark was a late interpolation. So there were a couple of witnesses, several, 12, and then 500. The story grows and grows and grows, like Paul's nose.

 

There is legend growing before your eyes. Mixed up stories that elaborate and get more and more detailed and complicated, with better stuff on the cross, more people as witnesses, and changing from a man into a god.

What evidence do you have Paul is lying?

[Shyone]

Do you cry for someone who hasn't died, but whom you know you will never see again regardless? I mean, do you cry like someone just cut your arm off? To be perfectly honest, I don't think even most Christians in their heart of hearts actually think they're going to see anybody after they die. Why? Because their reaction to death is no different from anyone else, especially atheists. Typically, consolation with the idea that they'll see their loved one again comes around the same time they can be consoled by remembering the good times, and such. Basically, the worst of their anguish has passed by that point, and consolation is possible. It also means they don't really need to believe that they're going to see that loved one again.

Christians do mourn just as deeply as aethist do. The difference is that the atheist has no hope while christians do have hope that we do indeed survive death.

 

You didn't answer anything! You just stated the very premise I am objecting to. My contention is that your mourning as deeply as those with "no hope" of reunion, is evidence that you don't truly believe there will be a reunion. We mourn because we know our interaction with that person is at a permanent end. We mourn because we know we can't get them back. You mourn because... why? I mean, I'd feel sad knowing I was never going to see a person for possibly the next 40 to 50 years, but I will see them again after I die, right? Your "knowing better" should mitigate the suffering incurred by the loss of a loved one, but it doesn't. Why not? Because believing that you will see them again is not the most firmly held conviction at the moment of loss. You can only cling to it once your anguish has subsided.

 

You also don't honestly believe in Hell, but that's a story for another day

I don't mourn when people go to Disneyland. First, I know I will see them again. Second, I know they are going to a better place, literally.

 

Christians should not fear death if they truly believed. They should not mourn the dead if they truly believed. Christians should want to die ASAP if they truly believed.

 

Why wear a seatbelt if you get to go to a better place than disneyland?

[centauri]

Since Jesus was God in the flesh and he made specific references to judgement, heaven and hell i have no choice but to deal with it. Ignoring it or trying to explain it away does not help. This is not the way to the truth.

According to the scriptures God is not man of flesh.

Jesus also claimed to have a God and it wasn't himself.

There are many NT verses indicating Jesus was not God.

Look at the contexts. Jesus was a man and the Scriptures refer to him as one. Those same Scriptures also tells us he is God.

I did look at the context.

God repeatedly told his people that he was not a man nor a son of man.

Then God warns his people not to be seduced by concepts of God that their fathers had not known.

Where do you see Jesus being revealed at Sinai?

The NT repeatedly shows Jesus as having a God.

The inconsistency with your theological claim is rather glaring.

[Japedo]

 

Eyewitness accounts are used in courts all the time to convict people of crimes. Since you doubt Jesus existed how would you go about proving that Ceasar crossed the Rubicon river?

 

 

A) I gave a link of a long list of eye witnesses to JFK.

 

B ) No one here is making the Claim about Caesar, that's for another conversation. You are the one that's taking a position of 500 witnesses with no proof. Trying to shift this conversation that George Washington told a lie or that people crossed rivers is nothing but distracting tactics as you have ZERO argument for the things you claim. Stay on topic. The 500 number is pulled out of thin air and has no backing, even you admitted as such up thread.

 

Todays courts need other things to convict people, eye witnesses usually help seal an already proven fact. Unless you want to use the Salem witch trials where people were convicted solely on peoples 'witnesses' and accounts of things. We all know how that ended, and we all know how 'true' that was.

[Guest amazed]

Do you cry for someone who hasn't died, but whom you know you will never see again regardless? I mean, do you cry like someone just cut your arm off? To be perfectly honest, I don't think even most Christians in their heart of hearts actually think they're going to see anybody after they die. Why? Because their reaction to death is no different from anyone else, especially atheists. Typically, consolation with the idea that they'll see their loved one again comes around the same time they can be consoled by remembering the good times, and such. Basically, the worst of their anguish has passed by that point, and consolation is possible. It also means they don't really need to believe that they're going to see that loved one again.

Christians do mourn just as deeply as aethist do. The difference is that the atheist has no hope while christians do have hope that we do indeed survive death.

 

You didn't answer anything! You just stated the very premise I am objecting to. My contention is that your mourning as deeply as those with "no hope" of reunion, is evidence that you don't truly believe there will be a reunion. We mourn because we know our interaction with that person is at a permanent end. We mourn because we know we can't get them back. You mourn because... why? I mean, I'd feel sad knowing I was never going to see a person for possibly the next 40 to 50 years, but I will see them again after I die, right? Your "knowing better" should mitigate the suffering incurred by the loss of a loved one, but it doesn't. Why not? Because believing that you will see them again is not the most firmly held conviction at the moment of loss. You can only cling to it once your anguish has subsided.

 

You also don't honestly believe in Hell, but that's a story for another day

It is not true that i or any Christian who feels a deep loss is an indication we have no hope. It is true it is difficult at first. I just don't grieve without hope because the Scriptures say there is hope. There is life after death. For the atheist it can't get any better since death is final for existence. I do believe in hell because Jesus taught about it.

[Guest amazed]

 

Eyewitness accounts are used in courts all the time to convict people of crimes. Since you doubt Jesus existed how would you go about proving that Ceasar crossed the Rubicon river?

 

 

A) I gave a link of a long list of eye witnesses to JFK.

 

B ) No one here is making the Claim about Caesar, that's for another conversation. You are the one that's taking a position of 500 witnesses with no proof. Trying to shift this conversation that George Washington told a lie or that people crossed rivers is nothing but distracting tactics as you have ZERO argument for the things you claim. Stay on topic. The 500 number is pulled out of thin air and has no backing, even you admitted as such up thread.

 

Todays courts need other things to convict people, eye witnesses usually help seal an already proven fact. Unless you want to use the Salem witch trials where people were convicted solely on peoples 'witnesses' and accounts of things. We all know how that ended, and we all know how 'true' that was.

I don't need the 500 to make my case. I already have the 12 plus James and Paul. More than enough to make my case in a court of law.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

 

Eyewitness accounts are used in courts all the time to convict people of crimes. Since you doubt Jesus existed how would you go about proving that Ceasar crossed the Rubicon river?

 

I am not talking about Jesus existing, I am talking about him resurrecting from the dead. Totally different things. Also eyewitness accounts are used yes, but not solely.

 

You can't have an eyewitness say, "I saw Joe kill Ted" and have a conviction without a crime scene, a body, a weapon, or some other evidence. Even further, you could not have a witness say, "500 people saw Joe kill Ted" and have that admissible. You would need the 500 people. And still, even if you had the direct testimony of 500 people, without any other evidence that what they are saying happened its not sufficient. 500 people could say they were abducted by aliens. 500 people could say they saw a witch turn into a frog. 500 people could say whatever they want and its still not proof. At best eyewitness testimony is corroborating evidence, and can be helpful for gathering physical evidence.

 

How about you prove that Mohammad did not ride to heaven on a horse? He wrote the account himself and there were witnesses. Must have happened by your reasoning.

[NotBlinded]

Eyewitness accounts are used in courts all the time to convict people of crimes. Since you doubt Jesus existed how would you go about proving that Ceasar crossed the Rubicon river?

Is that an extraordinary event? Was Ceasar God? Well, do you believe he is God?

 

Okay, we have now accessed your brain and have found it to be in atrophy. IT NEEDS EXERCISE! We all know, or at least most of us do, that a brain can't just do a few push-ups and be better. Nonononono....It needs first to be open to new thought. We can't strengthen a closed mind. Have you opened it? I know its hard at first, but you can do it if you try.

 

There, I knew you could!

 

I bet you are asking yourself, "What kind of stuff will exercise my brain? What is good for my brain? What is bad for my brain? Is it possible to over-develop an under-developed brain? Weezie, can you really help me?"

 

Boy, you sure ask a whole lot of questions!

 

Let's start exercising your brain. Like with any good workout, you need to warm-up the brain or you might pull a muscle. Recovery from a pulled brain is difficult at best and nearly impossible in most cases. In other words, if you don't warm up, you could end up brainless. Warm-up with a few simple stretches. Simple stretches include:

 

Listening to Mozart

Reading the front page of a newspaper

Watching PBS (you can use Sesame Street if you are really out of shape.)

How to Grow a Brain

[Japedo]

 

I don't need the 500 to make my case. I already have the 12 plus James and Paul. More than enough to make my case in a court of law.

 

 

Kangaroo courts don't count.

[Vigile]

Amazed, you believe the earth is 6,000 yo more or less don't you.

[Guest amazed]

I don't need the 500 to make my case. I already have the 12 plus James and Paul. More than enough to make my case in a court of law.

 

No you have story. That's all.

 

There are many storybooks full of witnesses of various events. Does that make the witnesses real? Does that make the event real? No and no.

If there are a dozen or so eyewitnesses to a battle of Alexander the Great does that mean its real or a fiction? In other words what would be necessary for you to know that such a battle took place?

[Shyone]

Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection.

Oh please! Your 500 people is also hearsay. Do you have anything from these 500 people...any statements or anything?

Two points about this:

 

1. Paul spoke of 500 witnesses - but he may have lied. His "testimony" about the 500 witnesses is all the evidence there is of 500 witnesses. To then claim that the "500" (not 499 or 501, but exactly 500) witnesses are evidence of jesus resurrection is nonsense. If I said there were 1,000 witnesses that would have testified that the 500 lied, does that overrule the 500? I just wrote it. Can you disprove it?

2. There are accounts of Jesus resurrection that start simply and grow increasingly complex. Same for the crucifixion (what was written on the cross?). Remember that the end of Mark was a late interpolation. So there were a couple of witnesses, several, 12, and then 500. The story grows and grows and grows, like Paul's nose.

 

There is legend growing before your eyes. Mixed up stories that elaborate and get more and more detailed and complicated, with better stuff on the cross, more people as witnesses, and changing from a man into a god.

What evidence do you have Paul is lying?

I'll restate what I wrote above so you can understand it.

 

1. The number 500 is a round number. Do you think this number is exact, or a guess?

2. The gospels contradict Paul. Every person who supposedly saw Jesus (even if they couldn't recognise him) is accounted for and, although the gospels disagree with one another, none of them come close to 500 people.

3. Paul admitted that a lie, if it brought people closer to Jesus, was acceptable. Christians have been lying ever since.

[Guest amazed]

gotta go. I may be back later. Its great having all of you as friends...

[NotBlinded]

If there are a dozen or so eyewitnesses to a battle of Alexander the Great does that mean its real or a fiction? In other words what would be necessary for you to know that such a battle took place?

Maybe a nice color text will make it easier for it to sink in:

 

Where is the extraordinary thing being claimed about a battle of Alexander the Great? Did any of his dead come back to life and continue to fight?

 

Does it make sense to you yet?

[par4dcourse]

gotta go. I may be back later. Its great having all of you as friends...

 

He's gotta go get the pity of his xian comrades and boost his self righteous ego.

Amazed: those darn ingrates still haven't succumbed to my most holy arguments.

Xian friends: heathens are like that. Well, at least you tried. Let's all go praise gawd and congratulate ourselves.

[bdp]

There's no reason we couldn't be friends, if you had any amount of respect for me.

[NotBlinded]

gotta go. I may be back later. Its great having all of you as friends...

 

 

You are a very "young" 18 year old ...

 

You lack the maturity and education needed to keep up with the discussions here.

He's 18? OMG, now I feel I've been attacking a child.

 

I apologize amazed. I didn't realize you were so young. You have a while to learn.

[par4dcourse]

gotta go. I may be back later. Its great having all of you as friends...

 

 

You are a very "young" 18 year old ...

 

You lack the maturity and education needed to keep up with the discussions here.

I wholeheartedly agree.

No offense intended to our young free-thinkers. You are the refreshing exception.

[Shyone]

gotta go. I may be back later. Its great having all of you as friends...

 

 

You are a very "young" 18 year old ...

 

You lack the maturity and education needed to keep up with the discussions here.

I wholeheartedly agree.

No offense intended to our young free-thinkers. You are the refreshing exception.

It is interesting to me that he uses the same basic strategy of deliberate ignorance that is so common with apologists.

 

Ask a broad question, get a long answer, pick a small part of the long answer to respond to and then ignore the rest while basically asking the same question again.

 

State your bias as fact, discount evidence or logic, ask the same broad question, and around we go.

 

What we write is never addressed with the seriousness in which it was intended.

[Guest amazed]

If there are a dozen or so eyewitnesses to a battle of Alexander the Great does that mean its real or a fiction? In other words what would be necessary for you to know that such a battle took place?

Maybe a nice color text will make it easier for it to sink in:

 

Where is the extraordinary thing being claimed about a battle of Alexander the Great? Did any of his dead come back to life and continue to fight?

 

Does it make sense to you yet?

Its my understanding what Alexander did should not have been possible. Its kind of like the movie "300" who held off an army of thousands.

 

If someone is claiming to come back from the dead then there needs to be evidence and the eyewitness evidence is sufficent to show it did happen. Does this make sense to you yet?

[Guest amazed]

gotta go. I may be back later. Its great having all of you as friends...

 

 

You are a very "young" 18 year old ...

 

You lack the maturity and education needed to keep up with the discussions here.

I wholeheartedly agree.

No offense intended to our young free-thinkers. You are the refreshing exception.

It is interesting to me that he uses the same basic strategy of deliberate ignorance that is so common with apologists.

 

Ask a broad question, get a long answer, pick a small part of the long answer to respond to and then ignore the rest while basically asking the same question again.

 

State your bias as fact, discount evidence or logic, ask the same broad question, and around we go.

 

What we write is never addressed with the seriousness in which it was intended.

The disadvantage i have is that i'm trying to have a conversation with a number of people at once and all you have is one conversation to deal with. Your job is far simpler than mine.

[Guest amazed]

gotta go. I may be back later. Its great having all of you as friends...

 

 

You are a very "young" 18 year old ...

 

You lack the maturity and education needed to keep up with the discussions here.

i must be doing something right since the last i looked this topic has one of the most responses. Pretty good for someone that's not that bright.