[Alpharius]

So, this hard evidence you claimed to possess. Where is it?

I ask because I can't find it in any of your posts...

[kingkongjaffa]

(Original post by Okashira)
According to the wikipedia article (it is wikipedia, so it's not official)

I love how he mentions that wikipedia is not official yet the basis of his argument is founded from a work of fiction

[kingkongjaffa]

(Original post by mc1000)
intellectual scholars just as much as Dawkins and Hawking - then that makes you a hypocrite.

Implying there is someone as smart as Stephen hawking.

[TheHansa]

Oh dear lord

Still I like how you managed to slip in the bit about the sneaky Jewish leaders being sneaky.

[aljolson]

(Original post by mc1000)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y...christ&f=false

If you're an atheist, then perhaps you should read the book in that link; in the same way that if you're religious you should read the God Delusion.

I myself am neutral in this argument. But if you idolise Dawkins and Hawking - if you have read the God Delusion from cover to cover, and you automatically dismiss any argument for Christ as bull****, without actually having an open mind and also considering the contrasting literature written by people who are intellectual scholars just as much as Dawkins and Hawking - then that makes you a hypocrite.

For the OP - read contrasting literature and formulate a proper argument, FFS.

I have read the bible, but not the god delusion, my atheism comes from
1 reading the bible
2 reading and watching, articles about science.
3 forming an opinion by rational thought

Now if anyone from the "God is real" school of thought, could come up with any rational evidence for existence of a God, I would be most happy to read it. Of course all they have is Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, or the sayings of David Koresh. I have more respect for the person who states along the lines of, I have faith in God and believe in him, but I have no proof. OKASHIRA keeps posting truths that simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

[BVahid]

Aside from the fact that debates about God, particularly the Bible, always get really heated...

Why can't we have a go at looking at this academically? This is "thestudentroom" after all. I'm studying Theology at university, and NO I'm not a Christian or an theist.. and I do not claim to be an expert. However, let me just make one suggestion for some of you to consider:

Just because a story is told in the Bible, does not mean that it is historically inaccurate. Taking this futher: how would you compare a report on WW2? You'd look at what other historians of the period said then, you'd check opposing views on it, and you'd look at what scholars say now too! (that's for starters)

If we all spent less time trying to "be right" or persuade the other person that our view is the best (which quite frankly is pointless a lot of the time), perhaps we would actually end up learning something, and enhacing our powers of debate rather than throwing metaphorical fire at each other and getting all worked up...

[Goku101]

I love these types of threads, because i find the arguments between religious and non religious people funny, in the sense that religious people almost always seem to lose, and are always desperately trying to convince everyone that their religion is right.

btw that first post about the "bible being used as evidence for stories in....the bible" made me laugh so hard, haha.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by BVahid)
Aside from the fact that debates about God, particularly the Bible, always get really heated...

Why can't we have a go at looking at this academically? This is "thestudentroom" after all. I'm studying Theology at university, and NO I'm not a Christian or an theist.. and I do not claim to be an expert. However, let me just make one suggestion for some of you to consider:

Just because a story is told in the Bible, does not mean that it is historically inaccurate. Taking this futher: how would you compare a report on WW2? You'd look at what other historians of the period said then, you'd check opposing views on it, and you'd look at what scholars say now too! (that's for starters)

If we all spent less time trying to "be right" or persuade the other person that our view is the best (which quite frankly is pointless a lot of the time), perhaps we would actually end up learning something, and enhacing our powers of debate rather than throwing metaphorical fire at each other and getting all worked up...

I completely agree.

Only the Bible was not written by historians. They were written by (in the case of the Gospels) Christians a couple of generations after the events they describe, each with their own ajenda.

You have to look at their accounts with this and all of their bias in mind when you consider their accuracy.

I'm not saying a guy called Jesus never existed, or that he was never crucified. I think there are records from the Romans of the crucifixion. What I will dispute is the miracles and sayings of Jesus, as the only evidence comes from the Gospels, and the Gospels, nevermind the rest of the Bible, are not reliable sources of historical events.

[Fires]

(Original post by Okashira)
.... delete crazed and illogical self-referential nonsense.... the only other option is in fact, Jesus had risen.

OP isn't a student, he's based in the US and is on some kind of Missionary Mission to TSR, presumably from some hack Bible college in Duluth or somewhere equally awful. Absolutely all of his posts are attempts to convert using spurious Bible references as some kind of truthiness.

/delete thread
/delete OP

[Add!ction]

[BVahid]

(Original post by Alpharius)
I completely agree.

Only the Bible was not written by historians. They were written by (in the case of the Gospels) Christians a couple of generations after the events they describe, each with their own ajenda.

You have to look at their accounts with this and all of their bias in mind when you consider their accuracy.

I agree - and I'm sure you'll note that I didn't ever claim that the Bible was written by historians. Actually, as it happens, what I had in my mind when I wrote my post, was evidence by others who were writing at this period - some were quite good historians, others less so (this is going by our modern understanding of history)

There has been a fair bit written, and sometimes nothing written, by others during the period (linked to the time period of events in the gospels, or the time period of when the gospels were written) - and this can take us some way towards working out what was historical and what is probably fiction.

For the record - some Christian academics do not think that Jesus rose from the dead; they think that actually the "mission failed" as it were, because Jesus got it wrong, as the end of the world didn't happen. Most reliable scholars however dispute this.

I love this stuff and really wish that many of us could be less heated about it. In the end, we're all going to die and find out the reality of God (or not) and in the meantime, we should probably be more considerate of other views. The example I gave above is one - it's scholarly and yet, there are two opinions. Plus, we don't get anything out of fighting each other over it. We can just (secretly) if needs be, think that the other side is wrong and happily carry on being good atheists or God-worshippers

[Alpharius]

(Original post by BVahid)
I agree - and I'm sure you'll note that I didn't ever claim that the Bible was written by historians. Actually, as it happens, what I had in my mind when I wrote my post, was evidence by others who were writing at this period - some were quite good historians, others less so (this is going by our modern understanding of history)

There has been a fair bit written, and sometimes nothing written, by others during the period (linked to the time period of events in the gospels, or the time period of when the gospels were written) - and this can take us some way towards working out what was historical and what is probably fiction.

For the record - some Christian academics do not think that Jesus rose from the dead; they think that actually the "mission failed" as it were, because Jesus got it wrong, as the end of the world didn't happen. Most reliable scholars however dispute this.

I love this stuff and really wish that many of us could be less heated about it. In the end, we're all going to die and find out the reality of God (or not) and in the meantime, we should probably be more considerate of other views. The example I gave above is one - it's scholarly and yet, there are two opinions. Plus, we don't get anything out of fighting each other over it. We can just (secretly) if needs be, think that the other side is wrong and happily carry on being good atheists or God-worshippers

Yep, completely agree again. If I thought you had claimed anything of the sort, I would have said so.

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Yep, completely agree again. If I thought you had claimed anything of the sort, I would have said so.

(Original post by BVahid)
I agree - and I'm sure you'll note that I didn't ever claim that the Bible was written by historians. Actually, as it happens, what I had in my mind when I wrote my post, was evidence by others who were writing at this period - some were quite good historians, others less so (this is going by our modern understanding of history)

There has been a fair bit written, and sometimes nothing written, by others during the period (linked to the time period of events in the gospels, or the time period of when the gospels were written) - and this can take us some way towards working out what was historical and what is probably fiction.

For the record - some Christian academics do not think that Jesus rose from the dead; they think that actually the "mission failed" as it were, because Jesus got it wrong, as the end of the world didn't happen. Most reliable scholars however dispute this.

I love this stuff and really wish that many of us could be less heated about it. In the end, we're all going to die and find out the reality of God (or not) and in the meantime, we should probably be more considerate of other views. The example I gave above is one - it's scholarly and yet, there are two opinions. Plus, we don't get anything out of fighting each other over it. We can just (secretly) if needs be, think that the other side is wrong and happily carry on being good atheists or God-worshippers

You may be both interested in this in relation to why no-one has properly responded in historical terms to the argument yet. There's a difference between saying a source has biases and saying its false. Particularly when the biases actually help make the only historical claim he makes in the OP dependant on the bible true (that a contemporary Jewish account probably existed saying the body was stolen).

You'll note he rules out Roman incompetence on different grounds than "the bible says so" and concludes the resurrection is true through using his initial historical (and very probably true) claim that this Jewish account existed and was probably wrong.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
You may be both interested in this in relation to why no-one has properly responded in historical terms to the argument yet. There's a difference between saying a source has biases and saying its false. Particularly when the biases actually help make the only historical claim he makes in the OP dependant on the bible true (that a contemporary Jewish account probably existed saying the body was stolen).

You'll note he rules out Roman incompetence on different grounds than "the bible says so" and concludes the resurrection is true through using his initial historical (and very probably true) claim that this Jewish account existed and was probably wrong.

I've already read your thread.

[Elzie]

(Original post by aljolson)
I have read the bible, but not the god delusion, my atheism comes from
1 reading the bible
2 reading and watching, articles about science.
3 forming an opinion by rational thought

I became an atheist when I was around 5 years old because there was no mention of dinosaurs in the Old Testament. Plus whenever I asked my teachers why there was no mention of dinosaurs and pointed out we had more evidence for dinosaurs than the Garden of Eden, I was given lines to write through my lunch.. :C

I was pretty big on dinosaurs, I guess.. Though if there were dinosaurs in religion, man, I would pray like ALL THE TIME.

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by Elzie)
I became an atheist when I was around 5 years old because there was no mention of dinosaurs in the Old Testament. Plus whenever I asked my teachers why there was no mention of dinosaurs and pointed out we had more evidence for dinosaurs than the Garden of Eden, I was given lines to write through my lunch.. :C

I was pretty big on dinosaurs, I guess.. Though if there were dinosaurs in religion, man, I would pray like ALL THE TIME.

Lines to write saying what?

[Elzie]

(Original post by Retrodiction)
Lines to write saying what?

I will not deny God's existence. For a whole hour. :|

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Elzie)
I will not deny God's existence. For a whole hour. :|

That's an argument against religion if ever there was one.

[iwishtheskywaspink]

(Original post by Add!ction)

LOL!

[Norton1]

(Original post by Elzie)
I became an atheist when I was around 5 years old because there was no mention of dinosaurs in the Old Testament. Plus whenever I asked my teachers why there was no mention of dinosaurs and pointed out we had more evidence for dinosaurs than the Garden of Eden, I was given lines to write through my lunch.. :C

I was pretty big on dinosaurs, I guess.. Though if there were dinosaurs in religion, man, I would pray like ALL THE TIME.

HERETIC! You deny the gospel of RAPTOR JESUS???