Christian med students: how do you reconcile your religion with your profession?

[Kal EI]

All your saying is confirming that many of today's theists cherry-pick out of the their religious text (the major text being the Bible if you're in the US) and that you just swallow, like ignorant sheep the garbage excuses and "metaphors" that pastors and whatnot come up to try to maintain that the religion, made up thousands of years ago, isn't just a bunch of out-dated ridiculousness.

The Bible says those things DID happen you *****. Why you would believe such ridiculous stories just because your family and friends said to do so just highlights your own weakness in logic and rationilization.

The fact that you are religious implies stupidity. Find me one study that shows that religious people 1) are more intelligent than non-theists and 2) even know more about their own religion than non-theists. Please do, I would love to see empirical evidence for either.

You don't need to believe in ridiculous stories made up thousands of years ago about supernatural beings to "get closer to the truth." Religion only separates you from the truth, from the reality of our existence.

You don't need a bunch of bull****, made up stories to be a good, moral person who can appreciate the beauty of life and strive to be a moral, empathetic person who tries to make the world better. In fact, non-theists are more likely than theists to be more compassionate and "moral" despite major misconceptions by the majority theists. And I think their is an incredibly strong argument that in fact a existential view non tainted by some religion instilled into them by birth, but instead one guided by one's own observations and reasoning provides a much better appreciation of all the world - the god and the bad.

And sure, non-extremists aren't *really* the ones going about causing all this ridiculous slaughtering and senseless killing in the world these days, just the extremisits, but when was the last time you saw an extreme atheist or agnostic group commit gross, inhumane atrocities against the lives of fellow human beings? OH THAT'S RIGHT - NEVER.

First off, there's no need for everyone to fight. As you said, we can all appreciate life and try to make the world better - we start by treating each other well regardless of our beliefs.

I know many smart atheists and theists. I don't think this choice makes a person smart or dumb. Also, I know many compassionate people on both sides of the ledger.

Christians don't believe that following Christ's teachings separates us from truth. In fact, Christ said, "For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth."

Lastly, you are correct that many have done terrible things in the name of religion. It's probably the most unfortunate thing for theists. These people followed their own selfish ambitions. I think if you look closely at what Christ taught by reading a book like the Gospel of John, you would find that Christ never taught people to do those things. As Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Anyway, good luck in school.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Frank22]

I am a devout Christian and am going into dentistry; wherein lies the crevasse between healthcare and Christianity?

 

[Wordead]

I am a devout Christian and am going into dentistry; wherein lies the crevasse between healthcare and Christianity?

Dont worry we dont consider your kind part of the healthcare community

 

[Houmd]

Is this ridiculous thread still going?

 

[xffan624]

And sure, non-extremists aren't *really* the ones going about causing all this ridiculous slaughtering and senseless killing in the world these days, just the extremisits, but when was the last time you saw an extreme atheist or agnostic group commit gross, inhumane atrocities against the lives of fellow human beings? OH THAT'S RIGHT - NEVER.

*Cough*Communists/Nazis*cough*100millionkilledinthe20thcentury*cough*

Let's not pretend any particular group of humans have a monopoly on atrocities.

 

[mehc012]

*Cough*Communists/Nazis*cough*100millionkilledinthe20thcentury*cough*

Let's not pretend any particular group of humans have a monopoly on atrocities.

To be fair, there is a difference between *people killed in the name of atheism*, and *atrocious acts committed by atheists*...the non-cohesive nature of a group which defines itself by what it rejects rather than what it has in common makes it a lot less powerful group motivator.

However, the person you are responding to was fanatical, rude, and nonspecific, so...yeah. You are right, and you are addressing the point that THEY brought up (which was a terrible statement terribly made, thus why I responded that I couldn't believe he/she opened that door.) There are good and terrible people in pretty much all groups of humans, unless you're sorting by 'good vs bad' to begin with!

 

[SpecterGT260]

To be fair, there is a difference between *people killed in the name of atheism*, and *atrocious acts committed by atheists*...the non-cohesive nature of a group which defines itself by what it rejects rather than what it has in common makes it a lot less powerful group motivator.

However, the person you are responding to was fanatical, rude, and nonspecific, so...yeah. You are right, and you are addressing the point that THEY brought up (which was a terrible statement terribly made, thus why I responded that I couldn't believe he/she opened that door.) There are good and terrible people in pretty much all groups of humans, unless you're sorting by 'good vs bad' to begin with!

All the same, blaming any atrocity done in the name of a religion is a little bit like blaming the gun used in a shooting. Based on the 2nd part of your post I think we are in agreement on this, I just wanted to highlight the point.

 

[Frank22]

The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history; Christianity is not and has never been a blind faith. Moreover, the New Testament is the most reliable historical document in the ancient Greco-Roman world. The argumentation used by many of those within the new atheist movement usually relies on emotional appeals or ignorance. Moreover, extant science has its basis in Christianity, and it is not just a coincidence that the Renaissance and Enlightenment occurred exactly where and when they did.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history; Christianity is not and has never been a blind faith. Moreover, the New Testament is the most reliable historical document in the ancient Greco-Roman world. The argumentation used by many of those within the new atheist movement usually relies on emotional appeals or ignorance. Moreover, extant science has its basis in Christianity, and it is not just a coincidence that the Renaissance and Enlightenment occurred exactly where and when they did.

Ok... I'm a christian. But these claims are pretty unsubstantiated. The "authenticated" events are largely anecdotal. Technically speaking and from a historical context there is no tangible evidence outside of spoken-to-recorded history that Jesus ever even existed. It is important to not make unsubstantiated claims in these discussions because you discredit both yourself and those who argue for your side by association.

 

[mehc012]

The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history; Christianity is not and has never been a blind faith. Moreover, the New Testament is the most reliable historical document in the ancient Greco-Roman world. The argumentation used by many of those within the new atheist movement usually relies on emotional appeals or ignorance. Moreover, extant science has its basis in Christianity, and it is not just a coincidence that the Renaissance and Enlightenment occurred exactly where and when they did.

As per the bolded: please explain what you mean by this, because otherwise my response is simply

 

[Frank22]

As per the bolded: please explain what you mean by this, because otherwise my response is simply

Modern science, that is as it is governed by the scientific method, has its basis in Christianity, no the belief that God created the world in such a way as to be governed by natural laws.

 

[Frank22]

Ok... I'm a christian. But these claims are pretty unsubstantiated. The "authenticated" events are largely anecdotal. Technically speaking and from a historical context there is no tangible evidence outside of spoken-to-recorded history that Jesus ever even existed. It is important to not make unsubstantiated claims in these discussions because you discredit both yourself and those who argue for your side by association.

Jesus's existence is incontrovertible among meritorious scholars; we have the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Clemente, Josephus, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Roman historian Tacitus, and of course the Gospels themselves among others. You cite that there is no "tangible" evidence of Christ's existence, while ignoring the fact that we have nothing written about, to, or from 99.9% of the ancient world; there is a simple and obvious reason for this phenomenon: It is very difficult to preserve documents over a span of 2,000 years. Moreover, the earliest biography of Alexander the Great was written hundreds of years after his death, and yet most historians consider it reliable, and all of the aforementioned sources I provided were all written less than a century of Christ's death. It is for that reason that E. M. Blaiklock, professor of classics at Auckland University, once said "I claim to be a historian. My approach to classics is historical, and I say to you that the historical evidence for Christ's life, death, and resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history." Scores of reputable scholars would agree with Blaiklock. If you are truly a Christian, I would strongly recommend you learn more about your faith; otherwise, you just discredit your claim of being a Christian and by association those of your ilk.

 

[mehc012]

Modern science, that is as it is governed by the scientific method, has its basis in Christianity, no the belief that God created the world in such a way as to be governed by natural laws.

You simply repeated yourself without clarifying. I still have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Frank22]

You simply repeated yourself without clarifying. I still have no idea what you're talking about.

Friedrich Nietzsche once said "there is no such thing as science without any presuppositions." In the case of science, it is called methodical naturalism. Methodical naturalism is a philosophical presupposition that has its basis in Christianity. In Islam, the belief that God created the world in such a way as to follow natural laws was regarded as "fettering the hands of God," and it is for that reason why science flourished in Christian Europe and not in the Islamic Middle East. If you're still confused, please clarify where your confusion lies.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Jesus's existence is incontrovertible among meritorious scholars; we have the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Clemente, Josephus, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Roman historian Tacitus, and of course the Gospels themselves among others. You cite that there is no "tangible" evidence of Christ's existence, while ignoring the fact that we have nothing written about, to, or from 99.9% of the ancient world; there is a simple and obvious reason for this phenomenon: It is very difficult to preserve documents over a span of 2,000 years. Moreover, the earliest biography of Alexander the Great was written hundreds of years after his death, and yet most historians consider it reliable, and all of the aforementioned sources I provided were all written less than a century of Christ's death. It is for that reason that E. M. Blaiklock, professor of classics at Auckland University, once said "I claim to be a historian. My approach to classics is historical, and I say to you that the historical evidence for Christ's life, death, and resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history." Scores of reputable scholars would agree with Blaiklock. If you are truly a Christian, I would strongly recommend you learn more about your faith; otherwise, you just discredit your claim of being a Christian and by association those of your ilk.

You seem to have a tenuous grasp on what the term "evidence" means. I am educated on the faith. You seem to be educated in it. There is a difference. This is why you are giving unsubstantiated crap and simply repeating yourself when challenged.

 

[Whatstheverb]

Friedrich Nietzsche once said "there is no such thing as science without any presuppositions." In the case of science, it is called methodical naturalism. Methodical naturalism is a philosophical presupposition that has its basis in Christianity. In Islam, the belief that God created the world in such a way as to follow natural laws was regarded as "fettering the hands of God," and it is for that reason why science flourished in Christian Europe and not in the Islamic Middle East. If you're still confused, please clarify where your confusion lies.

Buffonery. Look up Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī and the House of Wisdom.

 

[Jerry31xx]

.

 

[Frank22]

You seem to have a tenuous grasp on what the term "evidence" means. I am educated on the faith. You seem to be educated in it. There is a difference. This is why you are giving unsubstantiated crap and simply repeating yourself when challenged.

Given you contradicted yourself between those three sentences alone, I'm going to take it that that's as close as I'm going to get to an admission of defeat.

 

[PhysMatMan]

You seem to have a tenuous grasp on what the term "evidence" means. I am educated on the faith. You seem to be educated in it. There is a difference. This is why you are giving unsubstantiated crap and simply repeating yourself when challenged.

Do you believe Caesar existed? Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? Those are the questions he's asking. How do we know anyone in the past existed? Of course there is written evidence, maybe bones, or a bust or two. The evidence for Jesus' existence is enormous as a result of the cross-referencing of various historians aforementioned by the poster to whom you responded. In addition, the culture was completely different since most people couldn't actually read or write. History was passed on by word of mouth much like Homer's Odyssey, which naturally is terribly preserved, jk. When you cross-reference and find agreement between various sources, it increases the likelihood of a veracious account.

I can understand your resistance to academic authority and tradition, though, since it seems you're a Fundie?

 

[mehc012]

Given you contradicted yourself between those three sentences alone, I'm going to take it that that's as close as I'm going to get to an admission of defeat.

Not only did he not contradict himself, you have yet to make your point clear enough to even allow for debate or further questioning.

I think maybe you're trying to say that early christians did science, therefore science is based on christianity? Those two statements are not equivalent, by the way...aside from the historical inaccuracy of acting as if christians are the only group to instigate some scientific inquiries, it in no way means that science in its current form is dependent upon christianity.

Oh, and my inability to properly interpret your poorly phrased arguments is ALSO not an "admission of defeat", in case you find yourself wondering.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Do you believe Caesar existed? Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? Those are the questions he's asking. How do we know anyone in the past existed? Of course there is written evidence, maybe bones, or a bust or two. The evidence for Jesus' existence is enormous as a result of the cross-referencing of various historians aforementioned by the poster to whom you responded. In addition, the culture was completely different since most people couldn't actually read or write. History was passed on by word of mouth much like Homer's Odyssey, which naturally is terribly preserved, jk. When you cross-reference and find agreement between various sources, it increases the likelihood of a veracious account.

I can understand your resistance to academic authority and tradition, though, since it seems you're a Fundie?

I never suggested there isn't reason to believe. You need to look back and take the statements in their context.

The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history

He's making statements like this which... are essentially pulled out of his ass and he thinks some big words and an air of authority will ward off any challenge. Therefore I corrected him and stated that the evidence is all hearsay. This doesn't make it worthless. It absolutely makes it not what he presents it as.


and... Fundie? You simply aren't reading...

 

[SpecterGT260]

Not only did he not contradict himself, you have yet to make your point clear enough to even allow for debate or further questioning.

I think maybe you're trying to say that early christians did science, therefore science is based on christianity? Those two statements are not equivalent, by the way...aside from the historical inaccuracy of acting as if christians are the only group to instigate some scientific inquiries, it in no way means that science in its current form is dependent upon christianity.

Oh, and my inability to properly interpret your poorly phrased arguments is ALSO not an "admission of defeat", in case you find yourself wondering.

He may be catholic... they like to call Peter the first pope, even though the papacy was an invention of more modern times (as compared to that of the early christians) and he was retrospectively dubbed the pope. They also make the claim that Catholicism was the first christianity and others branched off. Never mind the fact that the catholic faith sprung out of Constantine's church which had little to nothing in common with early christianity.

This is somewhat of a round about way of me further fleshing out what I meant by "educated in" vs "educated on" a topic. Sure, we can drink the koolaid and regurgitate back whatever bogus falsehoods we were told... but if we did that we'd be chiropractors. if you catch my drift

There were also 5 sentences in the thing he quoted (albeit incomplete ones). It's usually good advice to never take someone too seriously when he or she can't even count to 5.

 

[Koalafied]

he may be catholic... They like to call peter the first pope, even though the papacy was an invention of more modern times (as compared to that of the early christians) and he was retrospectively dubbed the pope. They also make the claim that catholicism was the first christianity and others branched off. Never mind the fact that the catholic faith sprung out of constantine's church which had little to nothing in common with early christianity.

This is somewhat of a round about way of me further fleshing out what i meant by "educated in" vs "educated on" a topic. Sure, we can drink the koolaid and regurgitate back whatever bogus falsehoods we were told... But if we did that we'd be chiropractors. If you catch my drift

There were also 5 sentences in the thing he quoted (albeit incomplete ones). It's usually good advice to never take someone too seriously when he or she can't even count to 5

jj

 

[steezmonster]

I'll answer from my perspective:

I think many atheists and agnostics generally underestimate religious people's intellect. Most religious people don't read the Bible or Koran and believe everything it says word for word. Its not illegal to pick and choose what you personally believe in. But they do believe that there is a higher being responsible for creating the universe.

And who's to say there isn't? We live in such a complex reality that we honestly don't know where the universe came from, if there are more universes outside of ours, or how it got it's natural laws. I think it's perfectly reasonable when you look at all of these things to believe in a higher being. Heck, it might even be MORE reasonable to believe in intelligent design when you really take a step back and examine how fine tuned the universe is for existence.

Science can't prove everything now, and it probably never will be able to prove some things. Let people believe what they want to believe and move on.

Lol, it's NEVER more reasonable to believe in intelligent design. It's ALWAYS more reasonable to believe in natural processes that allow the universe to come into existence. Science does not rule out god, it shows us that a god is irrelevant and completely unnecessary to explain anything. Why don't we rule out all the logical reasoning before we explore the implausibility that a supernatural being snapped the universe into existence.

And...to OP... I do NOT wanna go to a med school where we can't get past each other's differences and respect people's beliefs. Grow up and open your mind.

 

[Frank22]

I never suggested there isn't reason to believe. You need to look back and take the statements in their context.



He's making statements like this which... are essentially pulled out of his ass and he thinks some big words and an air of authority will ward off any challenge. Therefore I corrected him and stated that the evidence is all hearsay. This doesn't make it worthless. It absolutely makes it not what he presents it as.


and... Fundie? You simply aren't reading...

I provided a source by a reputable scholar to corroborate that statement, and I can cite numerous other meritorious scholars to consummate that that belief is not limited to a single esoteric scholar. The claim that all the evidence is "hearsay" is risible. Honestly, why not just admit you're wrong instead arguing yourself in circles and spewing vitriol? You only hurt your own credibility in doing so.

 

[Frank22]

Not only did he not contradict himself, you have yet to make your point clear enough to even allow for debate or further questioning.

I think maybe you're trying to say that early christians did science, therefore science is based on christianity? Those two statements are not equivalent, by the way...aside from the historical inaccuracy of acting as if christians are the only group to instigate some scientific inquiries, it in no way means that science in its current form is dependent upon christianity.

Oh, and my inability to properly interpret your poorly phrased arguments is ALSO not an "admission of defeat", in case you find yourself wondering.

He claimed that I'm apparently learned in the the faith, but "pull statements out of my ass." One is a claim of knowledge, the other of ignorance; that is a contradiction. I've answered your question regarding science and Christianity several times; you refuse to tell me what befuddles you about it; methodical naturalism is borrowed from Christianity, and methodical naturalism is the presuppositional philosophy of science; how is that in any way, shape, or form abstruse?

 

[PhysMatMan]

I never suggested there isn't reason to believe. You need to look back and take the statements in their context.



He's making statements like this which... are essentially pulled out of his ass and he thinks some big words and an air of authority will ward off any challenge. Therefore I corrected him and stated that the evidence is all hearsay. This doesn't make it worthless. It absolutely makes it not what he presents it as.


and... Fundie? You simply aren't reading...

You're right on that one, I would definitely not agree that the resurrection is authenticated.

 

[SpecterGT260]

he thinks some big words and an air of authority will ward off any challenge.

I provided a source by a reputable scholar to corroborate that statement, and I can cite numerous other meritorious scholars to consummate that that belief is not limited to a single esoteric scholar. The claim that all the evidence is "hearsay" is risible. Honestly, why not just admit you're wrong instead arguing yourself in circles and spewing vitriol? You only hurt your own credibility in doing so.

I'd have to actually be wrong for such an admission to be anything other than an appeasement of a loquacious berk (see what I did there? )

You're missing the point and making yourself look like a ***** in the process. The best conclusion that any and all evidence on the subject can point to is not that the resurrection happened but rather that the story of the resurrection was told. That's the difference. To claim that the resurrection story is authenticated beyond that of most historic events is an embarrassing misunderstanding for someone of your big massive throbbing vocabulary

 

[mehc012]

He claimed that I'm apparently learned in the the faith, but "pull statements out of my ass." One is a claim of knowledge, the other of ignorance; that is a contradiction. I've answered your question regarding science and Christianity several times; you refuse to tell me what befuddles you about it; methodical naturalism is borrowed from Christianity, and methodical naturalism is the presuppositional philosophy of science; how is that in any way, shape, or form abstruse?

His comparison between "educated in the faith" and "educated on the faith" made his meaning clear. If you can't see what he was implying with that statement, you missed the entire purpose of the post and therefore aren't qualified to make any substantive judgements on it.

I'm sorry, but your explanations thus far are:

Modern science, that is as it is governed by the scientific method, has its basis in Christianity, no the belief that God created the world in such a way as to be governed by natural laws.

Which really just says "science comes from God because I already believe in God", and is therefore a statement of your personal belief, and not a justification for a bold, blanket statement about science. Science works equally well with or without presupposing God...therefore, that statement is more an explanation of how to reconcile religion and science than a characteristic of science itself.

Friedrich Nietzsche once said "there is no such thing as science without any presuppositions." In the case of science, it is called methodical naturalism. Methodical naturalism is a philosophical presupposition that has its basis in Christianity. In Islam, the belief that God created the world in such a way as to follow natural laws was regarded as "fettering the hands of God," and it is for that reason why science flourished in Christian Europe and not in the Islamic Middle East. If you're still confused, please clarify where your confusion lies.

Again, just because christians participated in something doesn't make them either the source of it or an inherent, indivisible component of it. "Christians did science" ≠ "science requires christianity".

 

[SpecterGT260]

He claimed that I'm apparently learned in the the faith, but "pull statements out of my ass." One is a claim of knowledge, the other of ignorance; that is a contradiction. I've answered your question regarding science and Christianity several times; you refuse to tell me what befuddles you about it; methodical naturalism is borrowed from Christianity, and methodical naturalism is the presuppositional philosophy of science; how is that in any way, shape, or form abstruse?

That isn't a contradiction.. When I said "learned in the faith" I was making reference to the various unsubstantiated claims that non-secular theological education usually makes. Such statements are not pulled from fact but from "the ass". So maybe not your ass, but whatever The point is you should maybe learn what these words mean before you venture forth to wield them so clumsily.

 

[Frank22]

You're right on that one, I would definitely not agree that the resurrection is authenticated.

I did not say that Christ's resurrection is authenticated, because authentication requires the majority of the historical community to be in agreement, and that will never happen with regard to a supernatural event. However, Christ's resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history. Thomas Arnold, a distinguished historian who wrote a three volume history of Rome and was the head of the Modern History department at Oxford a university once said "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of the fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." You will never convince some people that Christ rose from the dead, no matter how much evidence is presented, but the claim that Christ didn't exist at all is risible and could not possibly be believed by an accredited New Testament scholar.

 

[mehc012]

I did not say that Christ's resurrection is authenticated, because authentication requires the majority of the historical community to be in agreement, and that will never happen with regard to a supernatural event. However, Christ's resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history. Thomas Arnold, a distinguished historian who wrote a three volume history of Rome and was the head of the Modern History department at Oxford a university once said "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of the fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." You will never convince some people that Christ rose from the dead, no matter how much evidence is presented, but the claim that Christ didn't exist at all is risible and could not possibly be believed by an accredited New Testament scholar.

Just because the dude studied history and was also christian doesn't mean that the resurrection was well authenticated.
To me, that just sounds like a devout proclaiming his faith while complaining about his job at the same time.

No one said Christ didn't exist...come on man, stop making ridiculous statements, then completely changing your argument and then saying people are crazy for disagreeing with your sensible position when they were disagreeing with something completely different that you said.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history;.

I did not say that Christ's resurrection is authenticated. However, Christ's resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history.

Given you contradicted yourself between those three sentences alone, I'm going to take it that that's as close as I'm going to get to an admission of defeat.

. Honestly, why not just admit you're wrong instead arguing yourself in circles and spewing vitriol? You only hurt your own credibility in doing so.

Holy crap... It's like I don't even need to be here anymore... You make my arguments for me.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Just because the dude studied history and was also christian doesn't mean that the resurrection was well authenticated.
To me, that just sounds like a devout proclaiming his faith while complaining about his job at the same time.

No one said Christ didn't exist...come on man, stop making ridiculous statements, then completely changing your argument and then saying people are crazy for disagreeing with your sensible position when they were disagreeing with something completely different that you said.

That's called a "straw man argument". He is quite adept at it..

 

[mehc012]

That's called a "straw man argument". He is quite adept at it..

I know it is, I just figured I would explain it for him so it didn't get twisted into something else somehow.

 

[Frank22]

That isn't a contradiction.. When I said "learned in the faith" I was making reference to the various unsubstantiated claims that non-secular theological education usually makes. Such statements are not pulled from fact but from "the ass". So maybe not your ass, but whatever The point is you should maybe learn what these words mean before you venture forth to wield them so clumsily.

You need to be learned in the faith to know that Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead? I see what you're saying now, and the ridiculousness of it is laughable; you claim to be "learned" on the faith yet you jejunely questioned the evidence of Christ's existence; that is not an example of someone learned on the faith. It is, however, a mighty fine example of a fool who throws a tantrum when he is proven wrong and argues himself in circles, as you have done numerous times in this thread. When you were proven wrong about Jesus's existence you then tried to change the subject to my claim about the resurrection and claimed that that you didn't mean what you said you did. You are a pretend Christian and a coward. Pathetic

 

[Frank22]

Just because the dude studied history and was also christian doesn't mean that the resurrection was well authenticated.
To me, that just sounds like a devout proclaiming his faith while complaining about his job at the same time.

No one said Christ didn't exist...come on man, stop making ridiculous statements, then completely changing your argument and then saying people are crazy for disagreeing with your sensible position when they were disagreeing with something completely different that you said.

Actually, your butt buddy did question Christ's existence and claimed it was based on tenuous evidence, but you were to busy blabbering away about nothing to notice that. And I never said that Christ's resurrection was authenticated, or that it's historicity is based solely on the words of a meritorious scholar. That's called a "straw-man" argument; nice try though.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You need to be learned in the faith to know that Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead? I see what you're saying now, and the ridiculousness of it is laughable;

I have no idea where you got this from... likely just the poor reading skills you have been displaying all evening.

you claim to be "learned" on the faith yet you jejunely questioned the evidence of Christ's existence; that is not an example of someone learned on the faith.

That isn't what I did at all. Again, I am not sure at all how you think this is what happened. You made an unsubstantiated claim about biblical events being "authenticated". I pointed out, correctly, that Jesus's mere existence on earth is technically without authentication and verification. The only evidence of him existing is that which was present in the original oral traditions. I never once so much as suggested that I don't believe it myself. I just pointed out to you how ridiculously in error you were with the strength of your statements.

It is, however, a mighty fine example of a fool who throws a tantrum when he is proven wrong and argues himself in circles, as you have done numerous times in this thread. When you were proven wrong about Jesus's existence you then tried to change the subject to my claim about the resurrection and claimed that that you didn't mean what you said you did. You are a pretend Christian and a coward. Pathetic

There you go again using words you don't understand..

You clearly misunderstood and need to be babysat through a grownup conversation. The irony here is that you've proceeded to throw a tantrum after your straw man arguments failed. Go git yerself some moar book lurnin, please. Im embarrassed for you.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Actually, your butt buddy did question Christ's existence and claimed it was based on tenuous evidence, but you were to busy blabbering away about nothing to notice that. And I never said that Christ's resurrection was authenticated, or that it's historicity is based solely on the words of a meritorious scholar. That's called a "straw-man" argument; nice try though.

Are you one of those westboro loonies? That would help so much make sense right now... I didn't question his existence and I in no way hold myself responsible for your odd inability to understand that. If we are at an impasse there I will just chalk it up as one of many many things you struggle to wrap your brain around as you scurry through your online thesaurus trying to feign intelligence in this circle jerk you've constructed. It was a rhetorical device... you're the only one who didn't get that.

 

[mehc012]

Actually, your butt buddy did question Christ's existence and claimed it was based on tenuous evidence,

"Butt buddy"? Really?

but you were to busy blabbering away about nothing to notice that.

Nice ad hominem.
*too

And I never said that Christ's resurrection was authenticated,

oh, really?

The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history

or that it's historicity is based solely on the words of a meritorious scholar.

My comments about the "meritorious scholar" were directed at your last post, in which you extensively quoted a meritorious scholar.
I actually have no problem with you citing historians...that's kind of the point of there BEING historians. However, the quote you mentioned is not a meaningful one; it is one clearly based on faith rather than a serious discussion of historical evidence.

That's called a "straw-man" argument; nice try though.

Glad to see you were able to learn at least one thing here today...

 

[Frank22]

Again, I didn't say that Christ's resurrection was authenticated but better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history. Authentication requires full agreement, and that's why Christ's resurrection will never be authenticated. You then proceed with another lie: the reason why you lied is because you gave connotation that the evidence for Jesus's existence is weak, and when it was demonstrated that it was anything but weak you tried and are trying to pretend that that's not what you meant. You are also a liar because you claimed to be a Christian when you obviously are not. It's very common for new atheist cowards to pretend to be Christians and try to hurt the faith in such a manner however, so nothing new. I'm sure you're going to reply as you already have however through smiley faces and lame jokes, as you have through much of the thread.

 

[SpecterGT260]

"Butt buddy"? Really?

Nice ad hominem.
*too

oh, really?

Not ad hominem. Just abusive. He is getting frustrated that we cant all see his giant impressive brain through those complex words and obscure usages and because he hasn't made a valid counterpoint to a correctly interpreted argument made by much of anyone. So he started acting all calm and mature all of a sudden. Wait... no... that isn't right. There I wen't trying to use big words that I don't understand well. I meant to say that he started acting like a butthurt child.

 

[Frank22]

"Butt buddy"? Really?

Nice ad hominem.
*too

oh, really?


My comments about the "meritorious scholar" were directed at your last post, in which you extensively quoted a meritorious scholar.
I actually have no problem with you citing historians...that's kind of the point of there BEING historians. However, the quote you mentioned is not a meaningful one; it is one clearly based on faith rather than a serious discussion of historical evidence.

Glad to see you were able to learn at least one thing here today...

An ad hominem is a dismissal of a person's argument by attacking his or her character rather than addressing his or her argument. I'm not surprised you aren't aware of that thou given the difficulties you've had understanding simple arguments in this thread. For example, your difficulty understanding the difference between "authenticated" and "better authenticated." You then laughably claim that that historian's comments were based on faith rather than a serious discussion of historical evidence, even though the historian specifically claimed that his belief in the resurrection was based on the copious historical evidence buttressing it. How are you going to do well on the MCAT if you can't complete such rudimentary rationcination

 

[mehc012]

Not ad hominem. Just abusive. He is getting frustrated that we cant all see his giant impressive brain through those complex words and obscure usages and because he hasn't made a valid counterpoint to a correctly interpreted argument made by much of anyone. So he started acting all calm and mature all of a sudden. Wait... no... that isn't right. There I wen't trying to use big words that I don't understand well. I meant to say that he started acting like a butthurt child.

Haha, fair enough...I was taking "blabbering about nothing" as an insult, but I suppose it's not direct enough. It is an attempt to discredit me, but since he's doing it by discrediting my arguments I suppose it'd be circular to call it an ad hominem. Oh well. On the plus side, this is making the Skyrim load screens go by more quickly!

 

[SpecterGT260]

Again, I didn't say that Christ's resurrection was authenticated but better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history.

This is like saying that one of the cadavers in the anatomy lab is more or less dead than another. "better authenticated"....

Authentication requires full agreement, and that's why Christ's resurrection will never be authenticated. You then proceed with another lie: the reason why you lied is because you gave connotation that the evidence for Jesus's existence is weak, and when it was demonstrated that it was anything but weak you tried and are trying to pretend that that's not what you meant.

This is a straw man argument. You are misrepresenting my argument as it is the only way for your argument to make sense. Unfortunately for you, Frankie, even if I did claim what you thought I did, the other point that I am now "pretending" to make still stands. It is also a more logical counterpoint to the original statement you made, making your current line of reasoning somewhat forced. But hey, that's par for the course for you, isn't it?

You are also a liar because you claimed to be a Christian when you obviously are not. It's very common for new atheist cowards to pretend to be Christians and try to hurt the faith in such a manner however, so nothing new. I'm sure you're going to reply as you already have however through smiley faces and lame jokes, as you have through much of the thread.

Definitely catholic...
The saddest part of this is how completely unaware you seem to be of the irony of your statements...

 

[Frank22]

Not ad hominem. Just abusive. He is getting frustrated that we cant all see his giant impressive brain through those complex words and obscure usages and because he hasn't made a valid counterpoint to a correctly interpreted argument made by much of anyone. So he started acting all calm and mature all of a sudden. Wait... no... that isn't right. There I wen't trying to use big words that I don't understand well. I meant to say that he started acting like a butthurt child.

If one removed the insults you've made in this thread we would be left with a few sentences . Try admitting your mistakes next time and maybe you won't dig your hole so deep. Hypocrite!

 

[Frank22]

This is like saying that one of the cadavers in the anatomy lab is more or less dead than another. "better authenticated"....


This is a straw man argument. You are misrepresenting my argument as it is the only way for your argument to make sense. Unfortunately for you, Frankie, even if I did claim what you thought I did, the other point that I am now "pretending" to make still stands. It is also a more logical counterpoint to the original statement you made, making your current line of reasoning somewhat forced. But hey, that's par for the course for you, isn't it?


Definitely catholic...
The saddest part of this is how completely unaware you seem to be of the irony of your statements...

So the credible historian I quoted was lying when he said Christ's resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history? Do you even know what authenticated means? Authentication requires two elements: historical evidence and agreement. Christ's resurrection has more evidence supporting it than most of the facts of ancient history, and thus it can be regarded as better authenticated. However, because the majority of scholars do not agree that it ocurred it can never be regarded as authenticated. All you can do is claim that I'm misrepresenting you and am making straw-man argument; why not show us how I'm misrepresenting you and making straw-man arguments so we can all see. Or are you too scared to have your lies exposed again .

 

[SpecterGT260]

If one removed the insults you've made in this thread we would be left with a few sentences . Try admitting your mistakes next time and maybe you won't dig your hole so deep. Hypocrite!

I'd have to make them first.... we went over this, Frankie... No ammount of repetition will make your misunderstandings my fault. It isn't like you can just pray at it and make it so... Or maybe you could. But you must not have faith the size of a mustard seed. Such a false liar christian you are, Frankie meanie:

 

[Frank22]

I'd have to make them first.... we went over this, Frankie... No ammount of repetition will make your misunderstandings my fault. It isn't like you can just pray at it and make it so... Or maybe you could. But you must not have faith the size of a mustard seed. Such a false liar christian you are, Frankie meanie:

Try to save yourself through lies and insults because it's all you can do to salvage whatever little credibility you have left. Pathetic; deluded; cowardly; foolish. thumbdown

 

[mehc012]

An ad hominem is a dismissal of a person's argument by attacking his or her character rather than addressing his or her argument. I'm not surprised you aren't aware of that thou given the difficulties you've had understanding simple arguments in this thread. For example, your difficulty understanding the difference between "authenticated" and "better authenticated." You then laughably claim that that historian's comments were based on faith rather than a serious discussion of historical evidence, even though the historian specifically claimed that his belief in the resurrection was based on the copious historical evidence buttressing it. How are you going to do well on the MCAT if you can't complete such rudimentary rationcination

Good try on the bolded...the term is actually "ratiocination", though.

And yes, while you were posting this I did admit that it was not strictly an ad hominem, though it was a condescending attack. See, I have the ability to admit when I'm wrong or have misspoken, which you seem to lack.

Sorry, but "better authenticated" implies "authenticated". While you eventually made your point clear (though you never gave any examples of these "many events in history", you just kept repeating your mantra), you keep claiming that you never said the resurrection was authenticated, when your original statement, without the further qualifications you came up with, did in fact say exactly that.

I was just saying that a quote discussing "God's sign" is one heavily influenced by faith. Also, it's not actually possible to prove a resurrection years later; even if there was a death certificate and then a freaking notarized document signed by him 3 days later, we have no way of knowing whether he was correctly pronounced dead or simply made an astounding recovery from severe wounds, or whatever.

And I will do just fine on the MCAT, thanks. I have a knack for standardized testing.