doh

Thanks for the link dknight. I too agree with the author.

I understand your opposition to my statements regarding the resurrection of Jesus as being "supernatural".

Perhaps I need to be more clear. I was under the assumption that we were speaking strictly of the BIBLICAL ACCOUNT of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I didn't mean to treat it as an HISTORICAL ACCOUNT. There is big difference between the two. I choose to believe in the Biblical account as an historical account, but certainly understand why others would not.

However, when I speak of the "Resurrection Account" I'm speaking strictly with respect to how it is documented in the Bible. The Biblical account states that Jesus will be dead (100% clinically dead). We can debate the veracity of the death, etc. etc. But the Biblical account is clear, Jesus was 100% clinically (fair word? idk) dead. He was then raised from the 100% dead by God. God intervenes in this account. It is God who raises Jesus from the dead.

I mistakenly assumed we were speaking of the Biblical account rather than weighing it as an historical account. Again, I apologize for making assumptions. I never thought we'd get derailed about the term "supernatural".

Now that that's settled... we can assume the Biblical account as being something that was performed by God and is against the laws of nature.

Also probably not worth noting, I believe there is a reason that Jesus was dead for 3 days in the Biblical account: to insure that people could not state that he was not truly dead. If the account were 17.5 hours later, we could justifiably debate the diagnosis of his death. IMO, debating whether or not someone is dead yet after 3 days is well... silly.

I may be wrong here, but as I understand it the most widely accepted view of how one dies during crucifixion is by drowning in blood or suffocation.

RE: finknik and Jesus

There are a few Biblical accounts of people being raised from the dead by someone other than Jesus. The prophet Elijah raises someone from the dead in 2 Kings (I think it's chapter 3, if not then it's ch 2 or 4). PM me if ur interested in reading these accounts, I can dig them all up for you if you are interested.

Where in the Bible does Jesus claim to be God? (NIV doesn't count).

God showing his sense of humor IMO...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gAxbxxmYZ8

Nah, I'm just kidding... the bird obviously developed the need for neon blue smiley face amongst an odd feather formation to get laid (sarcasm).

I think we have gotten way off track in this thread.

I'd like to bring it back home.

"How to turn a (cracks me up every time) intelligent person into an athiest?"

I don't want to talk about the resurrection of Jesus, that's another thread entirely. I don't want to argue semantics about the definitions of "dead" or "supernatural".

I came here to learn about atheism from atheists. I didn't come here to nitpick about the Bible or it's miraculous accounts or it's inconsistencies (and trust me, I have PLENTY of issues with multiple Biblical accounts). However, I still choose to believe in the Bible as God's Word. But that doesn't mean I won't listen to the beliefs of others with an open mind.

So here's what I'm asking of you...

Please tell me why I should NOT believe in a higher power. I believe the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Certainly we can all agree that the null hypothesis in our study is that a higher power does in fact exist. (This would be the scientific approach as the overwhelming majority of people subscribe to this belief while only ~2.5% (dont care if this is accurate or not, I'm just quoting from wikipedia) of people consider themselves atheists).

I have an invisible talking petmouse, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

If I may nitpick just once more, you didn't want to say clinically dead. The just means the heart has stopped. We can fix that (CPR until someone comes around with the electrical shocking stuff). 'Clinically dead' is less dead than 'dead.' Plain old 'dead' is irreversible.

Well, I was just going off what wiki, as linked to, said. According to that, suffocation was a theory for a while, but some guy disproved it in 1988. I don't get the 'drowning in blood.' How is blood getting into your lungs?

I assume that the mouse only talks to you and only you can hear, right? Otherwise you could prove the mouse by having it talk to me also (neglecting the whole issue of this being an Internet interaction).

If that assumption is correct than I have to ask, is this a genuine claim or simply an argumentative tactic to illustrate a point?

Strangely, nobody ever presents the Gospels and says "here's a compelling case as to why we should accept this as reliable and true".

It's always "here's something else you accept as being true, now let me make a terrible comparison to it. If you accept this other thing, surely you must accept the resurrection/Uri Geller/Biotech is Godzilla".

Finknik did the same thing ITT with that dude crossing the Delaware. Did he walk on top of the water while crossing it, while a massive storm formed around him? Do we have like only 2 sources which are simply stories of the event written down decades later? If not, then stfu, they're not even slightly comparable.

We should also take things on their own merits. Whether we believe something else is irrelevant. If the crossing of the Delaware was actually unbacked by appropriate evidence then we should re-evaluate our belief in it. We shouldn't just use it as an excuse to believe anything else that is similarly unjustified.

Of course, this would all be entirely obvious to you if you actually evaluated what you believed. Instead you first look at what you believe, and then stubbornly try to prove it.

-Obv to the first questions, and no it isn't a genuine claim edit: but that's irrelevant

-It illustrates that the "burden of proof" for a higher power being on the atheist side is a ridiculous claim

The majority of my reasoning for believing in the Resurrection account is based almost entirely upon the Gospel accounts as well as some of Paul and others' writings.

Unfortunately, I don't care to delve into it at the moment.

In scientific experiments, we begin with a baseline assumption that is accepted as truth. We call this the null hypothesis. To test any theory, we always test it against the null hypothesis. If something is generally accepted as truth, the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the alternative hypothesis.

Perhaps what you are trying to imply is that just because the alternative hypothesis (that no higher power exists) cannot be PROVEN, it doesn't mean it's incorrect. This statement would be true. We call this a Type II Error in Hypothesis Testing.

Claiming that you have a talking pet mouse or whatever it was, could not be considered as the null hypothesis as this is clearly something that is not generally accepted as truth (simply start a poll and you have your null hypothesis). The burden of proof then lies on the shoulders of the alternative hypothesis (the hypothesis that a talking pet mouse does indeed exist). So here again, we have the burden of proof on YOUR shoulders.

You can't just formulate a scientific experiment how you want it to be structured. That is valueless.

are you actually claiming that the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ is "generally accepted as truth"? if not, please correct me. If so, then i dont think there is anything left to discuss.

btw, i'm pretty sure your analysis of the scientific process is incorrect, but i'll let the actual scientists (i may have the word "Science" in my degree, but alas, am not a scientist) respond to that.

Thanks for "unhijacking" the thread, i agree it was getting to off topic. (but par for the course in RGT)

Your are more than welcome to believe in a higher power. My personal opinion (in which I will be unable to back up) is that there is no logical difference (given the current scope of scientific progress) between being atheist, agnostic, or deist. Believing in a "higher power" is deistic.

Unfortunately, this is where your argument falls flat on its face. Being "religious" 99.999% of the time involves something much, much more than believing in a "higher power", and using your own logic, since no such "overwhelming majority" believes in any single religion (and even with a particular religion, what the religion actually entails), no religious claim, other than the existance of a "higher power" can ever be the "null hypothesis" of any "study".

As a follow-up, and to be fair, just because we hold something that is accepted as truth, it does not make it true. Even if we cannot disprove it. That is what the Type I Error in Hypothesis Testing accounts for.

In other words, just because 97.5% of people believe in a higher power and the 2.5% who do not are unable to DISPROVE their belief, it does not follow that the 2.5% are wrong.

Also worth noting... if we just discuss proof vs. disproof we are not going to get anywhere. No one on either side of the fence is going to be PROVING anything. We are discussing a system of beliefs. The best we can do is present evidence on both sides of the coin and weigh arguments with an open mind to come to our own conclusions.

I'm asking you (atheists) to present your arguments as to why I we should NOT believe in a higher power.

Thus far, we are 15 pages in and I have not read a single argument from atheists regarding the subject at hand "How to turn an intelligent religious person into an atheist". Please present your arguments. I'm truly interested in reading them and I'm not being facetious. However, if this thread is going to continue in the direction of the likes of: "Prove Washington crossed the Delaware", "Where does grass go when it dies?", "I have a talking pet mouse" and "God can't exist because he sure is mean in the OT", then frankly I'm done here. Not because I'm uninterested in the topic, but because I simply don't have time right now to invest in this sort of drivel. However, if you start formulating some ideas worth reading, I will continue to read and post in this thread.

Rain

see my other responses, but in general because being religious is more than just believing in a higher power. I believe you will find very few people who are willing to argue (or have the time or interest to argue) that being deistic is less logical than being agnostic or atheist.

No I am not claiming that the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ is "generally accepted as truth". I never stated that. I stated that an existing higher power is generally accepted as truth. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Regarding my understanding of the scientific process... I'm currently pursuing my PhD in Mathematics (though my thesis topic remains unchosen). I assure you I'm quite familiar with Hypothesis Testing. Statistics was my area of expertise.

i stand corrected.

please see my other responses why no one is going to waste time arguing why believing in a "higher power" is wrong.

Fair enough. So now I seem to be the one putting words into your mouth. If I understand it correctly, your issue isn't with people who choose to believe in God, gods or some higher power, but rather with organized religion (particularly Christianity in this thread, though I would guess it's not just limited to Christianity)? Is that a fair statement?

I actually dont have any problems with a person following an organized religion. I was a Christian for 20 years, and still attend church on a semi-regular basis. 90% of my friends are devout Christians, my wife and most of her family is Christian, etc. To add these people are all very bright individuals, and both successful in public and personal life.

That said, what i *do* have a problem with is what organized religion does in the name of said organized religion's God, but thats really a topic for another thread and has been discussed to death before.

In terms of intelligent religious people ... they are more than welcome to believe whatever they want, as long as their religious beliefs do not seep into whatever they do professionally. Most intelligent people do surprisingly excellent job compartmentalizing their religion and their profession.

You shouldn't believe in the biblical God because he's pretty ridiculous. If reading the bible didn't convince you of that then there's not much to say.

If theism isn't illogical, what would be your reasoning for not believing in any higher power at all? ie - why do you choose not to believe in some sort of spiritual world? Have you just not found one that adds up to you? I found myself in that boat for many years. I couldn't really find one that added up to me. I took too many issues with the Christian Church. I considered Buddhism for some time as well.

Bolded part is where your theory is flawed

I disagree. I know the Bible very well. I probably know more about the Bible than 95% of Pastors (I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just expressing how much I study the Bible). I have studied the Koine Greek, a little ancient Hebrew and have studied the Bible in great depth in over a dozen translations. I went to Bible school for 13 years. I stopped studying the Bible and took up many issues with Christianity because of inconsistencies I saw in the Bible, in the Churches and with my General understanding of God. Prime example: just last night I was reading a story in 2nd Kings where God sends a bear to devour 42 children because their parents disrespected God. Yikes!

However, that doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't harmonize or that God is unjust. There's a much bigger picture here that I see now. But perhaps that is again for another thread.