• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 34 40.5%

  • No, because you generally cannot prove a negative and it happened too long ago to do so now.

    Votes: 50 59.5%
  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
Leumas said:
I fixed the link you cited so that it is a hotlink

I watched the video in the link.... but I am confused...

You posted it as a response to the question
what is your positive version of a better world, Tommy Jeppesen?​

But the video shows a world where Atheists are pariahs being fired from their jobs and their careers ruined and people shunning them from their society and not willing to vote them into government jobs and not willing to allow them to marry their daughters and in general being treated as if they were the devil.

So I am not sure what you are saying??? Please explain.
Click to expand...

Sorry, should have been more precise about the link. Not the video, read the text and you end here http://www.cbsnews.com/news/atheists-in-godlessness-we-trust/3/
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Sorry, should have been more precise about the link. Not the video, read the text and you end here http://www.cbsnews.com/news/atheists-in-godlessness-we-trust/3/
Click to expand...


Yes I read both pages of the text already they are nothing but a transcript of what was said in the video.

I still do not get it... please explain in your own words what is it about the video or the transcript of it that is YOUR answer to the question
what is your positive version of a better world, Tommy Jeppesen?​

I fail to see what is positive about a section of society being treated like lepers.
 
Leumas said:
Yes I read both pages of the text already they are nothing but a transcript of what was said in the video.

I still do not get it... please explain in your own words what is it about the video or the transcript of it that is YOUR answer to the question
what is your positive version of a better world, Tommy Jeppesen?​

I fail to see what is positive about a section of society being treated like lepers.
Click to expand...

There are 3 pages:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/atheists-in-godlessness-we-trust/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/atheists-in-godlessness-we-trust/2/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/atheists-in-godlessness-we-trust/3/

At least in my browser ;)
 
Leumas said:
Yes and the text in them is nothing but a transcript of the video.... I watched the video and read the text.

I still fail to see the point you are trying to make... please explain
Click to expand...

So you have read all 3 pages and you don't see what I see; a better world. Okay, how do we solve that? Do we have to solve it?

With regards
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So you have read all 3 pages and you don't see what I see; a better world. Okay, how do we solve that? Do we have to solve it?

With regards
Click to expand...


What is better about the world described in the video/transcript?

Despite all the hopeful lovey dovey and Pollyanna B.S., it still remains to be a world filled to the rim with religiously induced and motivated and condoned
  • ignorance
  • stupidity
  • credulousness
  • nonsense
  • benightedness
  • absurdity
  • gullibility
  • hucksterism
  • superstition
  • irrationality
  • fear
  • coercion
  • shysterism
  • bigotry
  • xenophobia
  • prejudice
  • wishful thinking
  • illogic
  • hate
  • violence

The atheist teacher was not restored to his job and career and Americans still demand their president and congress mention god everywhere and would elect a religious fanatic over an atheist.

I am sorry but no, I do not see what you see.

P.S. Yes..Yes... I do realize all the stuff above can be the result of other things... but
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg​
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
What is better about the world described in the video/transcript?

Despite all the hopeful lovey dovey and Pollyanna B.S., it still remains to be a world filled to the rim with religiously induced and motivated and condoned
  • ignorance
  • stupidity
  • credulousness
  • nonsense
  • benightedness
  • absurdity
  • gullibility
  • hucksterism
  • superstition
  • irrationality
  • fear
  • coercion
  • shysterism
  • bigotry
  • xenophobia
  • prejudice
  • wishful thinking
  • illogic

The atheist teacher was not restored to his job and career and Americans still demand their president and congress to mention god everywhere and would elect a religious fanatic over an atheist.

I am sorry but no, I do not see what you see.

P.S. Yes..Yes... I do realize all the stuff above can be the result of other things... but
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg​
Click to expand...

I'm with you here. I don't see what Tommy's point is and he seems awfully reluctant to state it.
 
abaddon said:
I'm with you here. I don't see what Tommy's point is and he seems awfully reluctant to state it.
Click to expand...

Well, that is because I have a motive. You can say I am not lying, but I doing something because I am curious about something. If I can see something you can't see, then ask yourself this, is this quote true/proven/with evidence 100% absolute certain?

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg
Click to expand...

A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth

Claim: But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Evidence please or is the above quote is maybe a half-truth.

Remember: "absolute knowledge and practical knowledge". I only demand practical knowledge, but I won't settle for belief, feelings or any of the soft feel good "I don't like religion" or what not. That is an opinion and you are a skeptic.

So when you see what Leumas sees, do you see an opinion or knowledge?

With regards
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Well, that is because I have a motive. You can say I am not lying, but I doing something because I am curious about something. If I can see something you can't see, then ask yourself this, is this quote true/proven/with evidence 100% absolute certain?


A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth

Claim: But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Evidence please or is the above quote is maybe a half-truth.

Remember: "absolute knowledge and practical knowledge". I only demand practical knowledge, but I won't settle for belief, feelings or any of the soft feel good "I don't like religion" or what not. That is an opinion and you are a skeptic.

So when you see what Leumas sees, do you see an opinion or knowledge?

With regards
Click to expand...


Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking.

When is is the same as is is not when it is is and is is not then it is and is not is not.

Also is it to be or is it was to be and will it be or was it will be and will is be not be and be itself and is or is not.

That is the last refuge remaining for sky daddy wishful thinkers, to patrol skeptic and atheist sites and warp all meaning of words and logic and reality to the point where their god will make sense only because there is nothing but nonsense left after all that bedazzling magic of utter warping of reality and language and logic and any sense of rationality.

Warp reality to make it possible for their irrational illogical wishful thinking and delusions to become just yet another claptrap buried in the middle of piles of crap which no one will even detect as hogwash because they have been blindsided by the underhanded sophistry.


In the meantime can you please tell us what is it that you see in the video that is not in fact there but you think you see and you think is the answer to the question
what is your positive version of a better world, Tommy Jeppesen?​



With love and regards and may Jesus bless you.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
...
what is your positive version of a better world, Tommy Jeppesen?​
Click to expand...

Well, you are a skeptic and you know how reality works, so if there is a better world, you don't have ask, because you already know.
I.e. what not to do and what to do. In order for you to do something you have to know what to do in practice. I.e. since you don't do religion, but you do something else and you know what good and evil are, you know what a better world is. You understand how reality works.

Edit: With the sincere hope that you manage/cope and have a good enough life. (After your edit) :)
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Well, you are a skeptic and you know how reality works, so if there is a better world, you don't have ask, because you already know.
I.e. what not to do and what to do. In order for you to do something you have to know what to do in practice. I.e. since you don't do religion, but you do something else and you know what good and evil are, you know what a better world is. You understand how reality works.
Click to expand...


I will do what I do when you do not do what you're doing but if you do do it I will do it too and doing what is doing is not doing what is not done and will do and was done but maybe is done but it shall be done.


Tommy Jeppesen said:
Edit: With the sincere hope that you manage/cope and have a good enough life. (After your edit) :)
Click to expand...


Thanks for your wishes, but while you were writing those wishes thousands of children in dire need for a lot more than wishes have expired due to the lack of sky daddies and people to do anything useful for them other than wishing their sky daddies did something.

My life is better than 93.34% of the human race so despite being thankful for your wishes I really do not need them.

I am quite happy being in the top 6.66% of this world but I wish I were in the top 1% so that I could do something more effective for the people who really need a lot more than just wishes.

But I long ago realized that I would never have been able to be in the top 1% because I am not a psychopath or descended from a genetic pool endowed with this evolutionary advantage.... but in any case had I been one then I wouldn't have cared for the children in the first place so it is a pointless wish.


With love and regards and may Jesus bless you.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
I will do what I do when you do not do what you're doing but if you do do it I will do it too and doing what is doing is not doing what is not done and will do and was done but maybe is done but it shall be done.





Thanks for your wishes, but while you were writing those wishes thousands of children in dire need for a lot more than wishes have expired due to the lack of sky daddies and people to do anything useful for them other than wishing their sky daddies did something.

My life is better than 93.34% of the human race so despite being thankful for your wishes I really do not need them.

I am quite happy being in the top 6.66% of this world but I wish I were in the top 1% so that I could do something more effective for the people who really need a lot more than just wishes.

But I long ago realized that I would never have been able to be in the top 1% because I am not a psychopath or descended from a genetic pool endowed with this evolutionary advantage.... but in any case had I been one then I wouldn't have cared for the children in the first place so it is a pointless wish.


With love and regards and may Jesus bless you.
Click to expand...

Try with positive feelings, acceptance of the fact that we are a result of evolution, that there is no higher purpose to life, that evolution is still going on even within the human species, that we are a mix of good and evil as back to evolution, and finally leave Jesus out of it.

In practice for the direction, which might lead to a better world, it could involve a better understanding and awareness of how to "nudge" aspects of human nurture and culture in the direction of some of the "warm, fuzzy words" like fairness, respect, acceptance of some differences in subjective world views and so.
So since you are so fond of quotes here is as a "slogan" or what ever:
It is easy to turn peasants into soldiers, it is harder to turn soldiers into peasants.
As to facts - summit one rat to stress known in advance for several occasions and if it continues, the rat dies. Summit two rats and they fight, but live longer.

For humans if you can go the Buddhist way without getting lost in woo, it might work for some. Others have to learn the middle of the road and minimize negatives and avoid over-doing positives.
There are other aspects as well, but now I am going to answer your post and previous ones.

As apparently there is some sort of "rule of thumb" in science, namely you ought to watch out for the human tendency to take a sufficiently complex subject-matter and reduce it down to a 2 factor explanation for which one is true and the other is false. It might apply to some of your claims. You can consider it and you don't have to answer.

As for the 1% and the rest of your current answer consider this:
450px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png


The moment you enter into helping other people it in practice in some cases turn into shades of gray and goes from evidence based to evidence informed. E.g. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is one of those cases and yes, you start with lowest first, but in general all humans need the bottom 3 to be met before any human in general can achieve 4 and 5.
So yes, we need to give the children a fighting chance and for someone like me, while I am up there in the %'s in practice I have to do it in my local community. Now I am a former drug addict and current receiver of disabilities pension (I am crazy), so I am reduced to what I can do as a single person.

With love, regards and respect as from one human to another.

PS - I am working on not venting on other people on the Internet :)
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Leumas -- you might consider changing your approach a little bit. I agree with some of what you are saying, but there is no need to be so caustic about it. The highlighting and formatting does not help either.

And you can add me to the list of someone who has no idea what a "Christian atheist" is.
Click to expand...
I was gonna post this in a different thread, but what the hey!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

Apparently a Christian atheist thinks this Jesus character said some cool things but have yet to find evidence for belief in deities.


Brian-M said:
This must come in handy when Jesus applies for loans.

An itinerant preacher with no steady income? Loan deni... oh, wait! The applicant is Jesus! I can't deny him, so loan approved.
Click to expand...
Not sure why he'd need a loan anyway because Jesus saves.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Well, you are a skeptic and you know how reality works, so if there is a better world, you don't have ask, because you already know.
I.e. what not to do and what to do. In order for you to do something you have to know what to do in practice. I.e. since you don't do religion, but you do something else and you know what good and evil are, you know what a better world is. You understand how reality works.

Edit: With the sincere hope that you manage/cope and have a good enough life. (After your edit) :)
Click to expand...

How does this, in fact, explain your own, personal, "positive version of a better world"?
 
Slowvehicle said:
How does this, in fact, explain your own, personal, "positive version of a better world"?
Click to expand...

Well, it is simple. Forget evidence based as per science and go wide - if you only fight negative, all you have is a hammer and all, you see, are nails.
So what is the most simple way of explaining it - well, in 3 words; acceptance and science.

Accept other humans as humans otherwise you show them something you might want to avoid - they might get the idea that it also works on you and stop treating you like a human, because you are irrelevant. Also some studies seems to indicate that negative feelings "can eat you up". If we want a better world we need to learn from the soft end of science - sociology and incorporate that with psychology and biology. In short - evolution has "made" us good enough to survive, but not perfect. Good is not given in a human, it has to be found, devolved and maintained as least as a minimum in children.
Another point about acceptance is connected to science. There is no meaning to the external world, but rather meaning is a result of evolution and takes places in the internal world; i.e. the brain as cognition and feelings/emotions. Further while science is necessary, it is not sufficient. That one is simple - if someone claims that there are evil humans, ask him/her what that looks like. It always end back in the person as a process in the internal world, the brain, and then wide again as evolution and the rest of the external world.

Now in short - accept yourself and all other humans, warts and all. Don't overdo neither positive nor negative and accept that with acceptance follows a form of realism, where you know you can't save humanity. Rather you include yourself because otherwise you might get it wrong, when/if you try to help other humans and that can hurt you and/or them.
And as to "your own, personal, "positive version of a better world"?" There is no better world out there in the external world and when we look closer at good there is some variation, so I won't tell you that my life is good for you. We can look at what we generally know and compare - I might learn something and you might learn something.

To the point - I am a bleeding heart realist. The only thing I believe in with faith is humanity in a natural world, but I am a realist about because evolution is in one sense "nothing but a rat-race". ;) :)

With regards

PS - I am crazy and I am proud of it. Just as women, blacks, LGTB and all those I have not mention. I hope you are proud of being you.
 
Leumas said:
Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

\/ \/ \/ Hope you dont mind Leumas :)
 
devnull said:
\/ \/ \/ Hope you dont mind Leumas :)
Click to expand...

Can we agree that atheism is a negative; i.e an atheist doesn't believe in God.
But that doesn't say anything on the position of epistemology.

So here it is:
Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextus_Empiricus#Philosophy
Click to expand...

In practice it works like this:
Someone: I believe X with reason and so on.
Me: Yes, but there is problem - if we look closer it in effect says this; my thinking is what causes X to exist.

In the recorded history of mankind no one has found a criterion of truth/fact/evidence/proof, which didn't turn out to be either dogmatic, circular or infinite.
So for the purpose of epistemology I believe that the universe doesn't cheat and there is a world which matches my first person experiences. For the problem of there being a world tomorrow I act as if there will be one, but I don't believe that my thinking is what causes that there will be a world tomorrow.

In short the problem of avoiding dogmatic, circular or infinite claims has never been solved. Neither by atheists nor theists or anybody else as such including me. So in practice there are some people who claim that everybody else use dogmatic, circular or infinite claims, but he/she doesn't. That is special pleading btw.

With regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom