Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[Donn]

Why is sky daddy an insult? Have you ever heard of a prayer that starts "Our Father who art in heaven"?

You are correct, that should be Sky painter daddy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why is sky daddy an insult? Have you ever heard of a prayer that starts "Our Father who art in heaven"?

"sky daddy" is the universal indicator of pejorative derisive mocking although a very good indicator that what follows will be not worth one's time.

 

[The Big Dog]

Pity. You miss the chance to share your opposition and insights for heckling instead.

I'm done.

Odd, did you not want to address the question posed for the individual you are championing? How curious. How will we ever know "how retarded one has to be."

How darned imbecilic does one have to be to object to the form and ignore the content?

Again, the content? The question was "How retarded does one have to be..." that would seem to be the meat of the issue.

 

[tsig]

Ummmm, can but won't.

Feel free to assume his arguments, can you please start with the argument that starts, and I'll quote it for you:

"How retarded does one have to be to believe that this second one third sat for 9 months inside the womb of this little virgin, from the progeny of a family of incestually inbred pimps who pimped off their wives as a family business to make riches, and then oozed out through her birth canal?"

How retarded does one have to be Donn? the question is squarely presented and seeks a champion to take up the task of answering the skeptical question: How retarded does one have to be?

You take issue with the tone and not the facts then.

 

[The Big Dog]

You take issue with the tone and not the facts then.

The "tone." Oh dear. I simply quoted the insulting derisive questions that opened up each paragraph, I'm not sure that is "tone."

Why is everyone asking me questions?? the question is squarely presented:

"How retarded does one have to be..."

Have at it Skeptics!

 

[Dancing David]

So do you believe in an actual Adam and Eve who were real people in 3759 BCE and that their real sky daddy really kicked them out of the garden of Eden because they really were tricked by a real talking snake into eating a real magical fruit from a real magical tree?

And all this happened despite the Catholic Church claiming that evolution is true but that their sky daddy had infused souls in humans at some stage during the evolutionary process?

Can you explain what Adam and Eve and the talking snake would become if there was no Adam and Eve and no talking snake since humans evolved?

What do you think of people who believe that cutting the throat of a chicken and letting it cluck and bleed its life out slowly and then sprinkling its blood over their fetishes and talismans is one way they can effect desired changes to reality and to exercise influence over demons and ghosts and spirits to make them perform their bidding?

What do you call people who believe in Human Blood Sacrifice of their children as the only way redemption and atonement can be achieved?

WHOOSH the definition of metaphor just flew over your head

 

[Donn]

WHOOSH the definition of metaphor just flew over your head

Surely Leumas employs baroquely literal readings, but how is anyone to know the degree of metaphor in another's mind? And how, when the degree itself floats up and down the dial to conveniently hollow argument, can one make any headway.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I can't think of a more lazy form of apologetics than special pleading that you can't prove magic didn't make it happen outside reality.

 

[Donn]

I can't think of a more lazy form of apologetics than special pleading that you can't prove magic didn't make it happen outside reality.

It's true. Can you think of any good metaphors to convey the foolishness effectively?

It does seem that the idea of magic is a gateway to a strange world where everything is tinged with special, yet presumed commonplace.

It is thought real and widespread. When we point to the magic and mumble words that should flatten it, all they hear is the mumbling and they think it's a magic act!

 

[The Greater Fool]

Magic is an appealing fantasy. Especially so, because the fantasy can work any way you want. And, there are banana splits.

Christian god, on the other hand, is a very unappealing fantasy. As portrayed, he's a dick. No banana splits. He'd probably put them on a tree then say "You can't have it!" No thanks, I'll take magic.

 

[Donn]

Argument from banana splits.


You win.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Why is sky daddy an insult? Have you ever heard of a prayer that starts "Our Father who art in heaven"?

"sky daddy" is the universal indicator of pejorative derisive mocking although a very good indicator that what follows will be not worth one's time.

Not universal at all, and rooted in tsig's scripture, which is more than can be said for alternative indicators such as "sheeple", "truther", "climate hoax", "gun nut", "hoplophobe", "sjw", "surrender monkey", "raghead", "fundie", "modette", "tree hugger", "judicial activism", ....

 

[The Big Dog]

Not universal at all, and rooted in tsig's scripture, which is more than can be said for alternative indicators such as "sheeple", "truther", "climate hoax", "gun nut", "hoplophobe", "sjw", "surrender monkey", "raghead", "fundie", "modette", "tree hugger", "judicial activism", ....

I'm not sure that it is accurate to say that a juvenile mocking term like "sky daddy" is "rooted in scripture."

 

[Donn]

I'm not sure that it is accurate to say that a juvenile mocking term like "sky daddy" is "rooted in scripture."

tsig is the way, the truth and delight.

 

[IanS]

Try this:

A true magician can tear a sheet of paper in half and then rejoin the two halves so that — and here's the postulate — there is no physically possible way to find where the tear was.

The moment of magic suspends reality and all it's operations. Anything goes in that moment.

It's proper rubbish; special pleading on a gob-smacking scale, but it is proposed as the way god operates.

IanS is saying that allowing that argument is a slippery slope, and he's not wrong. It's a tired old used pair of holey underpants by now; utterly gross and only fanatics want to slip them on.

GF is agreeing, while pointing out the magic part.

I think we're simply talking past each other. I agree with both sides. It's a moment to pick one's tools per fight, really. Both of these approaches are useful.

Détente, people.

Yes ; I know that GF has repeatedly said he does not believe in any God's miracles. Fine, we all agree with that.

But of course the problem is that immediately after saying he thinks such claims of miracles are not credible, GF then tells us that if the not-credible claim of a miracle was ever more than just a claim, the miracle that is defined as "outside of science" would be outside of science by it's own definition, i.e. by whoever chose to define it that way in the first place!

Perhaps we could think about the dispute like this -

- what GF is proposing, is exactly the situation that existed before the advent of modern science, i.e. beginning roughly with Galileo circa.1600. Before that time everyone did propose that miracles and the supernatural were very real and that their effects were seen in abundance every single day. Many religious people still believe that even today.

But what science very quickly showed, was that such proposed beliefs were incompatible with genuinely objective un-biased honest observation, and also incompatible with the mathematical Theories ("proofs") that explained why those observations must be the way that we observe them.

Things might have been different when Galileo and his successors first began trying to take a genuinely objective scientific approach. It might have transpired that no logical consistent explanation could be constructed for all sorts of real events ... so that we might have been forced to conclude exactly what everyone expected, namely that many things were the result of inexplicable miracles from God. But what actually happened was the total opposite!

So that everything that was properly objectively honestly examined and accurately explained, all turned out to have a completely natural explanation. In fact, it all turns out to be part of one complete overall objective rational explanation, which is arises from the quantum behaviour of particle-field interactions (actually just interactions within fields).

So really this is actually an argument between science and ancient superstition,. And that's an argument which science won in the most dramatic and overwhelming way at least 150-200 years ago.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Why is sky daddy an insult? Have you ever heard of a prayer that starts "Our Father who art in heaven"?

"sky daddy" is the universal indicator of pejorative derisive mocking although a very good indicator that what follows will be not worth one's time.

Not universal at all, and rooted in tsig's scripture, which is more than can be said for alternative indicators such as "sheeple", "truther", "climate hoax", "gun nut", "hoplophobe", "sjw", "surrender monkey", "raghead", "fundie", "modette", "tree hugger", "judicial activism", ....

I'm not sure that it is accurate to say that a juvenile mocking term like "sky daddy" is "rooted in scripture."

So tsig is familiar with Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:1-4, but you are not.

 

[IanS]

The #1 definition of supernatural and miracle have no hedge or weasel words.

As such, much of the rest of your post is addressed by that fact.

I have not read further down your post than the first lines quotes above, but actually what you say there is wrong.

The first dictionary link that you gave was to “Dictionary.com”, and where it mentions God, it says “of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity“. And that was what you were talking about, remember? You were inviting us to consider a God meddling to raise Jesus from the truly dead by supernatural means that you say are “beyond or outside of science”.

However, even if your choice of dictionary was/is so incautious as to write a definition as if implying that the supernatural events really had happened, then (a) you should be ashamed of yourself relying on something as incautious as that to claim yourself that the supernatural might actually be true, and (b) you should get a better dictionary (or rely on something better than a "paper" dictionary).

 

[The Big Dog]

So tsig is familiar with Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:1-4, but you are not.

whoa. I totes missed that.

hits control -f types "sky" and "daddy"

No results. W.D. Clinger something must be wrong!

 

[IanS]

Christian god, on the other hand, is a very unappealing fantasy. As portrayed, he's a dick. No banana splits. He'd probably put them on a tree then say "You can't have it!" No thanks, I'll take magic.

The Christian God is apparently very appealing indeed to the majority of people in the educated democratic world (afaik, there are more believers than atheists).

The majority of people in the USA seem to be quite sure that he exists. And afaik, the majority of people in most nations of Europe also think he exists.

They also believe that he that he can answer prayers (which would require miracles, lots of them). And that heaven exists as a real place. Etc.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So tsig is familiar with Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:1-4, but you are not.

whoa. I totes missed that.

hits control -f types "sky" and "daddy"

No results. W.D. Clinger something must be wrong!

So you believe the Gospels were written in English, or the Authorized Version was dictated by some supernaturally ultimate authority?

You're searching a translation from the Greek "Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς". "Daddy" is more colloquial than "Father", but either would be an accurate translation of "Πάτερ". "οὐρανοῖς" can be translated as "sky" or "heaven"; both are accurate.

So "sky daddy" is an entirely accurate, if slightly colloquial, translation of a Greek phrase attributed to Jesus by scripture. If you insist upon thinking Jesus's use of that phrase was an insult to someone, that's fine with me.