you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (18 children)

Also possible that a good dude who preached love and kindness went into a coma when the tyrants put him on a cross, and then woke up a few days later, with no involvement whatsoever from the creator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (17 children)

    So you're suggesting a guy who was ruthlessly beaten and crucified , then stabbed in the side revealing that his lung had collapsed, simply recovered after two nights in a tomb and pushed a boulder out of the way, without the armed guards noticing? And who were the dudes just chilling there? And how do you explain the ascension into heaven?

    It is possible, but I'm not buying it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    That's fair, and you're entitled to believe what you like.

    My faith tells me that the possible (though unlikely) set of events must be true, as the alternative is impossible and just as unlikely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (15 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (14 children)

    In the simplest possible terms: people do not come back from the dead. That is an impossible thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (13 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (12 children)

    Logic and reason from billions of people's shared experiences on the earth.

    Feel free to die and return and prove me wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    So, you're saying Jesus didn't rise from the dead because it's impossible. And that we know it's impossible because nobody's risen from the dead, which should include Jesus because you reject that he rose from the dead because it's impossible.

    Isn't this circular reasoning?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Sure. Whenever discussing religion one will fall into circular reasoning, because faith itself is circular reasoning. One cannot use logic or reason to get out of a position that logic and reason did not get them into.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    How is faith circular reasoning?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    And forgive me for my use of "impossible" earlier, that's not my position.

    "Highly improbable" is a way better qualifier.

    Not going to edit it because it ruins the context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Well, it is highly improbable, because only a few people have, either by this aforementioned person or himself. And it requires supernatural powers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    You believe because you believe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Then our belief in anything can be put to circular reasoning

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Not exactly. Some things can be proven. But regarding things that happened thousands of years ago? Yeah that's just everyone's best guess and personal beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We can't prove that anne frank existed though. Those videos of her could have been an actress. The story could have been an elaborate rouse. Etc, etc

    You believe that anne frank existed because you believe that she existed, etc, etc

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment