Happy Atheist Forum

My wife is still a Christian and hasn't taken my de-conversion very well, so I do everything I can to be non-confrontational.  She asked me to come to church on Easter Sunday, and I agreed on the condition that afterward, I could ask her one question without her breaking into tears.  This is a big deal since she cries a lot, and then it's absolutely useless to try to carry on any meaningful discussion, so the end result is that we almost never talk about the subject at all.  

She agreed to my terms.

Clearly the Holy Spirit was moving or something because the preacher happened to mention the very passage I was going to ask her about, namely, "Doubting Thomas" (in John 20).  For those of you who don't know, Thomas was one of the 12 disciples who had supposedly witnessed all kinds of miracles and heard Jesus' teachings and heard Jesus predict his own resurrection.  Yet upon hearing news of the resurrection itself, he didn't believe.  He demanded proof; real, physical, tangible proof, not the "eyewitness account" that Christians bizarrely consider to be a bulletproof argument.  

So as a result of his lack of faith, Thomas was cast into an eternity of hell.  Ha!  Kidding.  Actually, Jesus indulged his healthy skepticism and gave him the proof he wanted.  Jesus then said that people who can believe without this proof would be blessed.

Alright, ignoring the disturbing "believe everything you hear without seeking evidence" vibe, my Easter question to Christians is this: Thomas, who supposedly had witnessed all kinds of miracles and known Jesus personally, had (supposedly) all kinds of reason to believe that Jesus could rise from the dead without needing proof.  And yet he demanded it, and it was granted.  But today, if a person who has never seen a miracle, nor ever met Jesus face-to-face, and lives 2000 years removed from all the eyewitness accounts, demands proof, they are not only denied but end up being condemned for an eternity of suffering.  Why?

Why?

Obviously it was a limited time offer from GodCo:

Not valid in Sodom or Gomorrah.  Philistines may be excluded.  Offer good only between the resurection and ascention. Some users may experience visions, spontaneous healing, or stigmata.  If you have a resurection lasting more than four hours, see you clergy.  All rights reserved.  A Quinn-Martin production.

Your BibleApproved answers may be:
Thomas believed wholeheartedly in Christ, he only doubted the resurrection.
Thomas believed in both Christ and the physical resurrection, only doubting the others had seen him.


Someone gave me a real good answer to that. I'm trying to find it, as was more impressive than those two.  It still sought to remove the "atheistic doubt" from Thomas, so that Jesus's appearance was still somehow a miracle of Thomas's faith.  Yeah.

Quote from: "Enoch Root"Alright, ignoring the disturbing "believe everything you hear without seeking evidence" vibe, my Easter question to Christians is this: Thomas, who supposedly had witnessed all kinds of miracles and known Jesus personally, had (supposedly) all kinds of reason to believe that Jesus could rise from the dead without needing proof.  And yet he demanded it, and it was granted.  But today, if a person who has never seen a miracle, nor ever met Jesus face-to-face, and lives 2000 years removed from all the eyewitness accounts, demands proof, they are not only denied but end up being condemned for an eternity of suffering.  Why?

I have learned that believing blindly is the opposite of some teachings of Christianity. Doubt and uncertainty will cause one to ask sincere questions as you look to find the reasons you do believe. In Christianity, it comes down to one's heart and the intentions that are within. If someone is demanding proof or some empirical sign with intent to disprove, maybe those are the ones that are condemned. If you're looking to strengthen your own belief and understanding, I don't see why that would make someone different from Thomas. Again, blind belief isn't what was taught to me, but I was taught to truly understand the reasons I do.

Hopefully I kept this short enough.

Quote from: "ACSlater"I have learned that believing blindly is the opposite of some teachings of Christianity. Doubt and uncertainty will cause one to ask sincere questions as you look to find the reasons you do believe. In Christianity, it comes down to one's heart and the intentions that are within. If someone is demanding proof or some empirical sign with intent to disprove, maybe those are the ones that are condemned. If you're looking to strengthen your own belief and understanding, I don't see why that would make someone different from Thomas. Again, blind belief isn't what was taught to me, but I was taught to truly understand the reasons I do..

Yes.  Thanks ACSlater.  Very subtle.

There is a third option - the one that science is based on.  Study the data and keep an open mind.  Be willing to revise or even replace the theory held based on the findings.

It doesn't have to be either/or.  Either I'm seeking to prove or disprove.  There are myriad problems with both.  They both have the potential to ignore data in favour of the theory.

Many religous people claim to be doubting or testing their faith, when in truth they are just seeking more data to support their position, while ignoring data that doesn't fit.  In some cases they will construct quite elaborate mechanisms to prove their position, and to disprove opposing positions...

Good topic,
JoeActor

Quote from: "joeactor"

Quote from: "ACSlater"I have learned that believing blindly is the opposite of some teachings of Christianity. Doubt and uncertainty will cause one to ask sincere questions as you look to find the reasons you do believe. In Christianity, it comes down to one's heart and the intentions that are within. If someone is demanding proof or some empirical sign with intent to disprove, maybe those are the ones that are condemned. If you're looking to strengthen your own belief and understanding, I don't see why that would make someone different from Thomas. Again, blind belief isn't what was taught to me, but I was taught to truly understand the reasons I do..

Many religous people claim to be doubting or testing their faith, when in truth they are just seeking more data to support their position, while ignoring data that doesn't fit.  In some cases they will construct quite elaborate mechanisms to prove their position, and to disprove opposing positions...

Good topic,
JoeActor

Ah, you're quite correct and very respectful in your diction when saying "many religious people" and not "all". Some people do wish to only support their position and ignore the rest...basically the Blue Bell Ice Cream of data gathering. I might be a weird one in the case of the quote I isolated from your post; I just don't really have to question the reason for my believing what I do. That may be due to the fact that I don't dismiss scientific discoveries and findings either.

For those keeping count, I guess that makes four cents I've thrown in now.  

Enoch, did your wife cry when you eventually asked her that question?

No, she didn't.  

That's progress then. Well done!

The explanation I heard for this from a pastor was that God grows tired of proving himself. So even in his omnipotence I guess his stamina isn't all that great.

Quote from: "Sophus"The explanation I heard for this from a pastor was that God grows tired of proving himself. So even in his omnipotence I guess his stamina isn't all that great.

Wouldn't growing tired constitute a failing or flaw? I thought god was meant to be perfect...

And yet he can apparently be perturbed by what I do with my penis...  Out of all the universe, the many happenings on Earth or in the farthest reaches of the cosmos, God can be pissed off by the actions of a few microbes like us on a chunk of rock enough to nuke cities, turn people into salt, flood the world, and crush their short towers.  I guess he feels a bit different about the Sears Towers than he did about the tower of Babel.

Flaws?  His solution to man's sinful nature was to come to Earth and let people beat him up and then crucify him so he could forgive us.  Let that sink in...

Quote from: "PipeBox"And yet he can apparently be perturbed by what I do with my penis...  Out of all the universe, the many happenings on Earth or in the farthest reaches of the cosmos, God can be pissed off by the actions of a few microbes like us on a chunk of rock enough to nuke cities, turn people into salt, flood the world, and crush their short towers.  I guess he feels a bit different about the Sears Towers than he did about the tower of Babel.

Flaws?  His solution to man's sinful nature was to come to Earth and let people beat him up and then crucify him so he could forgive us.  Let that sink in...

So what you'are saying is, Jesus was not the son of god, and hence, Judaism must be right? Got it, thanks for clearing that one up.

For those of you who are not believers and you had been around Jesus and seen the miracles He perfomed would you believe a dead man could raise himself from the dead?You have to remember Thomas asked the others to follow Jesus to Jerusalem and die with him.Sounds like a man that wasn't sure about what he believed even though he had been with Jesus for three years.Because on the night the Roman soldiers took Jesus away Thomas ran off with the others.Did he all of a sudden become unsure,no he all of a sudden was faced with a choice life or death and he did not want to gamble on his doubts.Ask yourselves would you have been willing to give up your life not knowing if this man calling himself the Son of God could raise himself from the dead if he couldn't then Thomas would have been in trouble and the life Jesus was talking about was eternal no one up to this point had been given this exept Enoch and Elijiah and they did not have to die to recieve it. So what would you have done I will tell you I would have acted no differant than Thomas.Also do not for get this all the others had already seen Jesus and then they believed Thomas had a more verbal action than the others.

Godschild, if we had been around then, we would've seen lots of "prophets" doing lots of "miracles" all over the place. Ever seen a street magician? I rest my case.

Also, lrn2punctuate.

Yes I have and I've seen their tricks,I've never seen one raise the dead,heal limbs deformed from birth,brought sight to the blind and I'm pretty sure none have ever allowed thereselves to be tortured to death and then raise thereselves to life"eternal".

                                                               Love to all in Christ Jesus

Quote from: "Godschild"Yes I have and I've seen their tricks,I've never seen one raise the dead,heal limbs deformed from birth,brought sight to the blind and I'm pretty sure none have ever allowed thereselves to be tortured to death and then raise thereselves to life"eternal".

                                                               Love to all in Christ Jesus

Your points seem contradictory to me. On one hand you say you would also doubt Jesus along with Thomas because you still fear death while on the other you imply that he is far removed from the title of mere street illusionist and is indeed the Lord of lords.

Either you think the guy has the right stuff and die for him or you think he is a quack/con-man/actor and get the hell outta there.

The point of this thread is that if one who witnessed the "awesome" power of Christ firsthand could doubt him then how can Jesus/God expect everyone else to believe in him without also showing himself to us and allowing us to stick our fingers in his holes.

Quote from: "Godschild"Yes I have and I've seen their tricks,I've never seen one raise the dead,heal limbs deformed from birth,brought sight to the blind and I'm pretty sure none have ever allowed thereselves to be tortured to death and then raise thereselves to life"eternal".

                                                               Love to all in Christ Jesus

You have never seen anyone raise themselves from the dead, heal deformed limbs, brought sight to the blind or allow themselves to be tortured either, magician or not.

QuoteMy wife is still a Christian and hasn't taken my de-conversion very well, so I do everything I can to be non-confrontational. She asked me to come to church on Easter Sunday, and I agreed on the condition that afterward, I could ask her one question without her breaking into tears. This is a big deal since she cries a lot, and then it's absolutely useless to try to carry on any meaningful discussion, so the end result is that we almost never talk about the subject at all.

Dude, I agree with your arguement about blind faith completely but i have some questions. Seeing that your wife's beliefs are so important to you(As far as I can tell you think it is unacceptable for her to remain a christian.) why did you marry her? If it meant that much to you maybe you shouldn't have married the poor girl or you could have at least leveled with her about your intentions to convert her. I experienced a similar scenario with my fiance but i handled it much differently. She was a christian who never really thought about the possibility of her god being a social delusion. I told her before we started dating that I was agnostic and would never marry/have kids with a christian(Think about it. Would you want your children being brainwashed by their own mother? Especially in our culture(I'm from tennessee. Ouch right?), I would have been percieved as a bad guy by most of my community just for offering them a second point of view.). We both have genious level IQ's(Starting my paragraph with the word "dude" doesn't help my case much ;) ).

Back to the actual topic of this thread. You guys still expect christians to be rational? They worship a giant invisable guy who lives in the sky  Come on! lol Their arguement has always been that they have a combination of faith and intuition that god is real.(They "feel" god. I actually think this feeling(I've felt it and reject it) is an evolutionary adaptation which has allowed a sort of group euphoria and cohesion. The perk of having such a trait is unity. The ability to share your imaginary friend/social delusion with others and then go out and kill people over him(What fun!). Ever wonder how Christian culture(And other religious cultures. Don't mean to just pick on the one.) managed to displace/assimilate so many rival cultures? And to top it off they manage to rationalize it all by saying they're doing us a favor(Hate to see how they treat their real enemies) rofl.) Any attempt to prove anything borders on blashemy to them(They base their beliefs on millenia old texts which were second hand information centuries before they were actually written down. They have an awful lot of trust in their publishers lol(Anyone know what I'm getting at? The roman church/state supposedly edited the bible to suit their needs. Seems to me like they jumped off a burning "Jew ship" and shifted seemlessly into another convenient pile of dogma which would help them maintain their power and wealth. Funny but I'm on jesus's side. A lot of what he was doing was to free people from an oppressive aristocrasy which was using their religion as a sort of metaphysical shackle.).) And there's really no way to "meet" them in debate they just seem to reject reality/reason on principle. If you've found some way of reasoning with such creatures I could really use your help down here in tennesse man.

SSY my point exactly no one of this era has seen anyone do those things,so without the evidence how is it you can discredit Jesus your always wanting evidence from christians when we disagree with you about evolution,if you want to disagree thats fine,but to reduce Jesus to a mere man bring the evidence and remember there is more than enough evidence that Jesus lived among mankind.

Quote from: "Godschild"SSY my point exactly no one of this era has seen anyone do those things,so without the evidence how is it you can discredit Jesus your always wanting evidence from christians when we disagree with you about evolution,if you want to disagree thats fine,but to reduce Jesus to a mere man bring the evidence and remember there is more than enough evidence that Jesus lived among mankind.

Actually, you're making SSY's point for him.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
You claim that Jesus existed and performed these miracles.
Outside of the biblical texts, there is very little evidence of this.

In fact, there's very little evidence that Jesus existed at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus)

So, what real proof can you provide outside of your own religion's writings?

That is the question...

Hollownucleus no contradiction all the disciples fled and hid to save there lives,but once they saw they believed and then after His ascension they recieved the Holy Spirit and from that day forward they were willing to die for Him and they did, most very cruel deaths.Since we have past history to observe we can learn more about ourselves as long as we are true to ourseleves.No one wants to suffer especially to justifiy a story that we do not believe in,even Jesus ask His Father to release Him from this suffering if it were possible and then He told His father your will be done because He believed in His Fathers wisdom.

                                                                   Love to all in Christ Jesus

JoeActor there is far less evidence of many of the evolutionary theories people ascribe to and that seems to be OK. Actually the reliability of the New Testament is well documented,we can get into that if you want but it will be a great wall of text or you can read some of it that Man of God wrote in the religious section titled Contradictions in the Bible,by perspective.Why should I have to go outside of the Bible when evolutionist do not have to go outside of their papers.To stray from the Bible just a bit there are secular writers that have written about Jesus.

                                                                                  Love to all in Christ Jesus

Evolutionists, I love it.

Are people who think Gmail is a superior emailing method Gmailists?  

Quote from: "Godschild"Yes I have and I've seen their tricks,I've never seen one raise the dead,heal limbs deformed from birth,brought sight to the blind and I'm pretty sure none have ever allowed thereselves to be tortured to death and then raise thereselves to life"eternal".

                                                               Love to all in Christ Jesus

If you are older than 10 year old, please use punctuation.  It makes it difficult to read what you are trying to write.

No one saw Jesus do these either.  The Gospel books are highly suspect.  They were not written by eyewitnesses, but by those who were competing amongst multiple sects.  Not only are they internally and externally inconsistent, but they import legends and myths from multiple other sources in an attempt to gain "credibility" amongst the sheeple.  He who had the most miracles in their books win! lol  If you are basing your belief system upon the fairytales of the New Testament.  I truly feel sorry for you.  You are exhibiting the traits of an unthinking sheep.

The fact is that Constantine was facing the collapse of the Roman Empire and USED religion in order to establish a heirarchy by which he could dominate and control his people.  In so doing, he selected the least threatening religious figure in Jesus because Jesus taught pacifism (e.g., "render unto Caesar") and carefully selected religious texts which were not "too" crazy or radical in order to gain acceptance, then MANDATED that all other texts were heretical, and persecuted those who were not agnostic followers of Jesus.  The gnostic followers of Jesus were the greatest threat as those texts and that sect taught them to find the truth (god) within themselves rather than have it dictated to them.  Can't have such "freethinkers" around as they would rabble rouse against the dictator.

The bible was a tool for political domination.  Nothing more, nothing less.  To base a belief and have faith in such nonsense as the myths and legends found within the bible is ridiculous

Heck, even Thomas Jefferson recognized this and rewrote the bible to remove the laughably ridiculous miracles out and left in only the pacifistic teachings of Jesus.

Quote from: "Godschild"JoeActor there is far less evidence of many of the evolutionary theories people ascribe to and that seems to be OK. Actually the reliability of the New Testament is well documented,we can get into that if you want but it will be a great wall of text or you can read some of it that Man of God wrote in the religious section titled Contradictions in the Bible,by perspective.Why should I have to go outside of the Bible when evolutionist do not have to go outside of their papers.To stray from the Bible just a bit there are secular writers that have written about Jesus.

                                                                                  Love to all in Christ Jesus

What is your point about the theory of evolution? Are you arguing that there is far less evidence of evolution than in the reliability of the New Testament?  If so, how can you support that statement?

Why should you have to go outside of the bible?  C'mon, you can't be serious!?!  With that feeble standard, anything you pick up to read cannot be challenged.  You could run around holding up copies of the Iliad and the Odyssey and claim that the mythological gods and monsters within that book are valid . . . .  Think about what you are saying . . .

Evolutionists do not have to go outside of their papers!?!  That is completely false.  The scientists who write papers testing the theory of evolution do so with evidence that is found OUTSIDE OF THEIR PAPERS. . . .

Lastly, please provide evidence of secular writers that wrote about Jesus supporting the theory that Jesus was a god, without basing their writings upon the gospel texts.  The issue is NOT whether Jesus the man existed.  That is completely irrelevant.  The issue is whether Jesus was a god.

QuoteThe fact is that Constantine was facing the collapse of the Roman Empire and USED religion in order to establish a heirarchy by which he could dominate and control his people. In so doing, he selected the least threatening religious figure in Jesus because Jesus taught pacifism (e.g., "render unto Caesar") and carefully selected religious texts which were not "too" crazy or radical in order to gain acceptance, then MANDATED that all other texts were heretical, and persecuted those who were not agnostic followers of Jesus. The gnostic followers of Jesus were the greatest threat as those texts and that sect taught them to find the truth (god) within themselves rather than have it dictated to them. Can't have such "freethinkers" around as they would rabble rouse against the dictator.

The bible was a tool for political domination. Nothing more, nothing less. To base a belief and have faith in such nonsense as the myths and legends found within the bible is ridiculous

Exactly. It was also a very safe bet for him to do this centuries afetr jesus was dead. The whole reason jesus got crucified was becuase he was upsetting the balance of power and posed a potential threat as a revolutionist of sorts.

QuoteWhat is your point about the theory of evolution? Are you arguing that there is far less evidence of evolution than in the reliability of the New Testament? If so, how can you support that statement?

Why should you have to go outside of the bible? C'mon, you can't be serious!?! With that feeble standard, anything you pick up to read cannot be challenged. You could run around holding up copies of the Iliad and the Odyssey and claim that the mythological gods and monsters within that book are valid . . . . Think about what you are saying . . .

Good arguement dude.

Quote from: "Prometheus"Seeing that your wife's beliefs are so important to you(As far as I can tell you think it is unacceptable for her to remain a christian.) why did you marry her? If it meant that much to you maybe you shouldn't have married the poor girl or you could have at least leveled with her about your intentions to convert her.

You misunderstand.  First, we were both Christians when we married.  I have recently "seen the light" (or rather, that there is no light).  Second, I in no way think it's unacceptable for her to remain a Christian.  I do not try to de-convert or argue with her at all.  I think it's a personal decision.  Also, the church we attended (that she still attends) is not the crazy type that tends to make headlines around here.  They don't protest against gays or tell you how to vote, so it's not like I'm married to a member of the Taliban.  Third, while she may not like my de-conversion, it will not end our marriage.  I am quite confident about that.

Quote from: "Prometheus"I told her before we started dating that I was agnostic and would never marry/have kids with a christian(Think about it. Would you want your children being brainwashed by their own mother?)

We don't have kids yet but are talking about it.  I've made it clear to her that I won't stop her from bringing them to Sunday School, but I also won't lie to my children when they ask what I believe, or why daddy doesn't come to church with us.

Quote from: "Prometheus"Sorry, I tend to rant but my point is that if you really wanted a nonchristian wife, the time for persuassion was sometime before you ritualistically bound yourself to her forever. Seems like you've really screwed the pooch dude.

I think I did pretty well actually.  Christian or not she's still a keeper.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Evolutionists, I love it.

Are people who think Gmail is a superior emailing method Gmailists?  

I direct your attention to Evolutionist and other silly words... (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2977)

Sorry for misunderstanding Enoch root. What you mentioned about the children sounds like a fair compromise. Good luck and best wishes.

Quote from: "Godschild"JoeActor there is far less evidence of many of the evolutionary theories people ascribe to and that seems to be OK. Actually the reliability of the New Testament is well documented,we can get into that if you want but it will be a great wall of text or you can read some of it that Man of God wrote in the religious section titled Contradictions in the Bible,by perspective.Why should I have to go outside of the Bible when evolutionist do not have to go outside of their papers.To stray from the Bible just a bit there are secular writers that have written about Jesus.

                                                                                  Love to all in Christ Jesus

Evolution is backed up by tons of evidence, in fact these days we can even see evolution happening right before our eyes, its quite remarkable.

Please show us how reliable the new testament is, especially the bits about jesus being the son of god and performing miracles. If you can come up with a photograph or a video of him doing the miracles, then I will be really, really impressed. As it is, you have some crusty old books to rely on, which have been chopped, changed, translated, re translated, interpretted, lost, found, rewritten and all manner of other processes. Why not present some of the evidence that shows how reliable the new testament is. Not oppinions, but evidence.

Pro tip, just because something was written down, even a long time ago, does not mean that is true.

QuotePlease show us how reliable the new testament is, especially the bits about jesus being the son of god and performing miracles. If you can come up with a photograph or a video of him doing the miracles, then I will be really, really impressed. As it is, you have some crusty old books to rely on, which have been chopped, changed, translated, re translated, interpretted, lost, found, rewritten and all manner of other processes. Why not present some of the evidence that shows how reliable the new testament is. Not oppinions, but evidence.

Pro tip, just because something was written down, even a long time ago, does not mean that is true.

   A perfectly rational statement. I can't see why theists don't see the truth of this(I have a splendid theory on how and why they perform their mental gymnastics which I'll start a thread on tommorrow perhaps.).