Washington crossed the Delaware.

Or Pete'd be wearing a red coat instead of a red uniform.

For the skeptics, here's a CS Lewis quote.

"None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life."

i agree 100% with this statement. Did I somehow say otherwise?

This sounds pretty shortsighted to me. using this logic, 100 years ago, many things would be considered supernatural that today are determined to be perfectly natural.

Also, is it your claim that its supernatural for someone to be dead for 48 hours, and then come back to life? If not there have been many medical cases of people who would be considered clinically dead, who have "come back to life".

Regardless, I do not believe resurrection has ever occurred, *and even if it has* that does not mean it is supernatural. It could merely be "miraculous".

So i take it you believe in all things ancient people wrote including their supernatural beliefs? Or is it you pick and chose which truths to believe in?

Funny how this all works. If i accepted the resurrection of Jesus and Christianity i would have to dismiss all other non Christian supernatural events like other peoples resurrection even though they had witness and wrote their stuff down.

This is false. There is also physical evidence for these historical claims. However, even so, the point is that while all historians agree (to my knowledge) about the basic fact of the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Spanish Armada or yes, even that Washington crossed the Delaware, they do not agree that Jesus miraculously rose from the dead. So while I can rely on the authority of historians for my belief that the Norman Conquest actually happened, I cannot rely on their authority for a belief that the resurrection actually happened.

I'm not saying I believe what they believed. I'm just saying that I believe that they believe it.

omg... I didn't realize you were this guy. Hmmm... I wonder if the history books have corroboration from other sources? Also, does the GW claim pose anything unlikely?

Honestly, I keep asking myself if this is just another troll trying to make Christians look stupid. At any rate, this sort of thing has been done again and again on these forums and the end result is the same; it just becomes a "laugh at the illogical ignorant theist" thread.

No time and not interested. You've already demonstrated so many horrible logical fallacies and statements that I have no reason to believe there's any point in trying to treat this as a conversation with a reasonable educated adult. The logic is just too bad.

Good luck with you. Honestly. It just feels like you lack so much basic information and every new turn just opens up news doors of epic fail that there's no point. So take care.

But why dont you believe them? They wrote it down and had witnesses.

"None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life."

According to Mr Lewis's quote you should have a problem knowing anything in this life with that amount of skepticism.

I did want to comment on this though... because this is unique. Since Jesus is God, then Jesus IS responsible for things in the OT like the slaughter of all 1st born men in Egypt. You are the first Christian to admit that Jesus is a mass murderer.

Thank you for your honesty.

RGT needs a FAQ, one for new atheist posters to read, and one for new theist posters to read. the can be co-authored by atheists and theists since I can't image theists enjoy when these theists spout these tired arguments.

Come on guys hes new here and really every religious argument is just a rehash of old ones. I mean yeah this might be the oldest and most tired out of them all but...

Apparently not, actually. Sorry, I didn't notice the quotations you used on my first reading:
Anyway...
So basically you're saying that I can't claim anything is supernatural? Otherwise, where are you drawing the line?

I like how you slipped in the word 'clinically,' there. Sure, we only do CPR and use the shocking defibrillators on someone who's clinically dead. So before 1767 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_18th_Century ) this part is irrelevant. And if you look at a case like this: http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ife.html?cat=5 she only lived because of the CPR and induced hypothermia. Plus she was only out for 17.5 hours, not even 1 day.

And look here, they resurrect dogs! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160903,00.html But they do cheat and use the old hypothermia trick.

Unless you're saying that Christians aren't claiming that Jesus really died. Maybe just his heart and lungs stopped working, but he still had brain activity? Or maybe he found a really cold spot in the Mid East to preserve himself for a few days? The Christian version of the story involves Jesus actually dying and then being alive again. This has not happened and is not naturally possible.

Wait, people read FAQs?

j/k, I actually do. But I suspect that those who we will want to direct to the FAQ are those who won't read it for the most part. Still, I kinda like the idea.

when I got the "ha ha... superstitious... they were killed for the beliefs so its not superstition" argument I knew its bad.

Obviously any new arrival doesn't know the history of the forum and some rehashing is expected. But its one thing to bring old arguments to the table. Its another to show no understanding of logic, history, etc. You get nowhere when every post is littered with logical fallacies, erroneous information, etc.

If you were discussing Calculus and someone came in with a few years of math and didn't understand some principles, you can bring them up to speed.

If someone comes in to your calc discussion, disputes your proof of some math problem and them demonstrates that he doesn't understand addition... you're never going to get anywhere.

not at all ... but to be honest I have trouble conceptualizing something that is supernatural, unless by definition it is supernatural (like God).

I have no idea. There are a myriad of possibilities. Regardless, if you are saying that someone being dead (I'll have to trust your definition, you are the doctor afterall) for 3 days and then coming back to life through natural means, is completely impossible, then i'll need you to back up that assertion.

I believe I agree with the famed theist Dinesh D'Souza in what he says on this page of his book "What's so great about Christianity":

http://books.google.com/books?id=vVX...page&q&f=false

(hopefully the link works, i would hate to have to type it out)

There should be a faq with common points that have been debated endlessly and number them.

even if people don't read the whole thing, they could be referred by number.

theist "do martyrs die for false beliefs? Nyah nyah! Since Christians willingly died for their beliefs, it must be real!"

Anyone else: Oh, you're posting that ol argument. Refer to Faq32B which will point out all the problems. Thanks

I had to quote myself because all of the dialogue since I posted this earlier has proven my point. People like dknightx, no matter how rational, will never penetrate their sickness of belief. Its a wall only they themselves can tear down. Nice try though. I don't have the patience to get into these debates anymore.

I dont really disagree with any of this. But still hes new so we should probably cut him a little slack. Plus there aren't many theists here so its best to lure them in with a little candy instead of the hard stuff.

gangsta-
It is the belief of many that there is no such thing as supernatural... only unexplained. I think dknight mentioned previously that many things previously considered supernatural have since been explained by science.

Also- the question w respect to this thread is sort of moot. Because we have such a long line of uproven things that we have no reason to believe.

We're not sure Jesus was real.
If he was real, we have no reason to believe the Bible accurately reflects his life.
There could have been a jesus who was crucified... who didn't die. But was mistaken for dead.

I've read some scholars suggest that the whole Jesus risen from the dead was a later embellishment. (this as well with the son of god)

I could go on and on. In short, there's really no good reason to believe anything supernatural has happened. Debating the definition of 'supernatural' is really just a slight topic derail.

The link does work, but I (of course) disagree with the author.

To begin with, the first few days after death aren't so great for the human body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Fresh Cells all over die. Organs dies. Bacteria take over the body. Flies begin to lay eggs. Even if we ignore the bacteria and flies, the rampant cell death could not be overcome. You'd be asking the brain to start up again even with much of the cells dead. The heart muscles and muscles for breathing -- how could they still work?

I imagine it was hot where Jesus died (it was Israel, right?), so the decomposition process would certainly be moving ahead at full steam.

If we ignore this, we should examine how Jesus died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruxifixion#Cause_of_death
If it was blood loss, the blood would have to be replaced in order for him to be alive again. If it was sepsis, the bacteria would have to all die off and the damage from the bacteria would have to be reversed. How could either of these have happened?

I can't back up that it's truly impossible. But I also can't show that it's truly impossible for an avalanche of snow to reverse and move up a mountain. Given all we know, however, there's just no other holdable position on the matter. Go ahead and ask every doctor/biologist you know. See what answers you get.

Out of curiosity, does anyone claim that Jesus was resurrected by natural means? I kinda figured that those that actually claim that he was resurrected have no problem with it being a supernatural phenomenon.

I made my point and you all made yours. The arguments not really going to go anywhere from here. It's all up to you. Anyone can send me an instant message via AIM if they want. Screen name is Razz Fink.

See now this bugs me.

That's not how it works around here. You have to keep going and rehash and reword the things you've said at least three times. Then, already knowing that you're not getting through, you have to try to frustrate and tire out the opposition, because simple language and agreed-upon definitions cease function and normal operation.

So back to the original point, are you still claiming that calling the resurrection of Jesus supernatural is "flat out wrong?" How can you not believe it even happened, yet be completely sure that it was a natural event?