This was posted 5 years 7 months 17 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free Digital Audio Course Download "The Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. Gary Habermas (Normal Price US $99) @ Credo Courses

3217
Free Digital Audio Course Download "The Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. Gary Habermas (Normal Price US $99) @ Credo Courses
Go to Deal
gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 00:03 credocourses.com (187 clicks)
Last edited 06/10/2018 - 02:09 by 1 other user

Normal Price USD $99, Free for Limited Time.

If you aren't interested in Credo Courses deals you can simply hide that store from your deal feed. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:faq_beginner?#how_can…

Dr. Gary Habermas is Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University. Dr. Habermas is the most respected scholar of the resurrection of Jesus in America and in this class he teaches you everything he’s learned.

Gary Habermas, the world’s leading expert on the resurrection of Christ, has created an entire course just for you!

There is no more important event in human history than the Resurrection of Christ. This event not only evidences God’s intervention and love into the human condition, it tells the world that Christ is Lord.

The great thing about the resurrection of Christ is that it is not something God asks believers to accept with blind faith. This is an event that happened in human history with hundreds of historic details that people are called to examine to gain confidence in their faith in Christ.

That is why this 30-session Credo Course is focused solely on the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. There is not a more important event for Christians to know inside and out. The historicity of the resurrection is sure to tame any skeptic (outside and within).

Full Session List

The Importance of the Resurrection of Jesus
A Priori Objections (Part 1)
A Priori Objections (Part 2)
Principles of Historiography
Methodology: How Do We Use Historiography in Apologetics
Approaching Scripture
Minimal Facts Method
Preaching before Completion of the New Testament
Naturalistic Theories: Alternative Explanations for the Resurrection
Naturalistic Theory 1: The Disciples Stole the Body
Naturalistic Theory 2: Someone Else Stole the Body
Naturalistic Theory 3: The Swoon Theory
Naturalistic Theory 4: The Hallucination Theory
Naturalistic Theory 5: The Copycat Theory
Supernatural Alternative Theories
Categorical Problems with Naturalistic Theories
Understanding the Mind of a Skeptic
Changing the Skeptical Mindset of the Naturalist (Part 1)
Changing the Skeptical Mindset of the Naturalist (Part 2)
Evidence for the Death of Jesus
Evidence for the Appearances of Jesus
Evidence for the Empty Tomb
Constructing a Historical Timeline
Apologetics: Building a Bridge from Miracles to Christianity
Apologetics: Establishing a Connection between the Resurrection and the Existence of God
Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Establishing the Deity of Christ
Grounding Theology (Part 1)
Grounding Theology (Part 2)
Grounding Christian Practice: Application Based on the Resurrection
The Resurrection of Jesus

Education

Related Stores

Credo Courses
Credo Courses

closed Comments

    • Kooratz on 06/10/2018 - 11:01
      +1

      yep..it's all useless

      • [Deactivated] on 06/10/2018 - 13:26

        The system of governance and the people's opinion of those in control of the nation's assets is useless?

    • gamemaster on 06/10/2018 - 13:52
      +3

      The only censorship this site needs is self-censorship. If you don't like a deal then simply ignore it, the world doesn't need to know about your views.

      • 0jay on 06/10/2018 - 13:55
        +1

        Curation is not censorship.

        This site has a specific purpose which is sharing bargains. In order to properly facilitate this particular purview, lines have to be drawn and definitions observed. Religious promotional material does not fit my definition of a bargain, however it might be dressed up as a dollar saving.

        I reckon a lot of people would agree.

        • gamemaster on 06/10/2018 - 14:01

          And people who don't use (insert any item) won't find (insert any item) a bargain either.
          If the deal is not legitimate we have a voting system which will reflect that, we don't need to ban anything. As I eluded to before, if this deal or any bothers you then ignore it.

          • 0jay on 06/10/2018 - 17:19

            @gamemaster: Not about banning anything. Some things are not appropriate (sex toys might be one example). There are forums for those specialty areas.

            As for what’s a bargain or not, I don’t wear makeup but can recognise a 50% off Revlon as a good bargain.

            Discounts on promo material that’s produced for propogation with no realistic expectation of return does not qualify as a bargain.

            As for the rating system these religious posts always get a very high proportion of negs.

      • AustriaBargain on 06/10/2018 - 18:02
        +4

        If the Christian types don’t like some of the comments that these “deals” attract, then they are free to simply ignore the comments too. Cuts both ways.

    • 0jay on 06/10/2018 - 13:52
      +1

      I was under the understanding it was to be moved to the forums, apparently that decision has been reviewed.

  • kelza83 on 06/10/2018 - 11:00
    +1

    Listening now. It’s too challenging for non believers.

    • EightImmortals on 06/10/2018 - 11:19
      +1

      Yuip, just started listening to it as well, I love how he pretty much described this whole thread in the first 10 minutes of the second lecture. :)

      Maybe he's prescient as well as educated?

    • Rayve on 06/10/2018 - 11:29

      Seriously? Or sarcasm? If there was real evidence for the resurrection it would be rational, consistent and believable and then everyone would be a believer. The Judeo-Christian God seems highly incompetent and incapable of providing billions of people with sufficient evidence to even suggest it is a real entity. Why not simply rearrange some stars in the night sky to spell 'Jesus' if he wants to? Or appear to everyone on the planet simultaneously and tell them it is real? Why is faith - the 'evidence' of things unseen - required at all?

      And the standard answer - 'That if you knew God existed for sure then you would lose your free will and have to obey' - simply is not true. Certainly Lucifer and a host of his friends had that knowledge and decided to rebel anyway. Even if I knew for 100% fact that such a God existed I would not 'worship' it. It is cruel, full of anger and petty rules, endorses life-long slavery, killing people for working on certain days of the week and so on. Wants us to kill all witches too - what even is a witch anyway? Prove one of those exists, or anything supernatural before trying to sell myths as reality on a bargain site.

      • EightImmortals on 06/10/2018 - 11:34
        +1

        But you are not arguing against the evidence as presented in the course, you are arguing with your own assumptions or are simply having a conversation inside your own head (or with one you might have had or heard somewhere else).

        I'm happy to discuss the info presented in the OP (even though I didn't start this thread) though I'm only part way through the second lecture.

        • Rayve on 06/10/2018 - 11:40

          Why not convince the whole world then? Prove that a supernatural event actually happened then? Surely you will have all the evidence you need after doing this course to convince ANY skeptic (the ad says you will). Why has nobody ever done this? If your religious claims are so compelling then they you should be able to make a convincing argument for the vast majority of people to accept, especially rational people. Show me actual evidence and not words written in a book (particularly when that book says that demons cause madness and so on.). I challege you or any religious person to present real evidence - say that an Australian court would find acceptable if it were holding a murder case.

          • EightImmortals on 06/10/2018 - 11:44
            +2

            @Rayve: "If your religious claims are so compelling then they you should be able to make a convincing argument for the vast majority of people to accept, especially rational people. "

            Sorry champ, not playing. They aren't MY claims, they are the claims of the person presenting the lecture, maybe you should listen to them first before rabbiting on so much? You know a 'rational person' such as yourself would at least check something out first wouldn't they? Isn't that what 'rational people' do? At least that way you'd have a tiny bit of credibility rather than just rejecting something out of hand.

            And again: "A Priori Objections (Part 1)"

          • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 11:51
            +1

            @Rayve: This is probably your guy if you want evidence which can be used in a courtroom. Maybe looks for more videos, website, and books by him. Just a short video for you to know who I'm talking about: J. Warner Wallace https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZqoLzqzAks

    • SBOB on 06/10/2018 - 14:48
      +4

      It’s too challenging for non believers.

      and a re-enforcing echo chamber for believers
      ;)

  • RubenM on 06/10/2018 - 11:13
    +3

    Negging as the store giving it away lacks credibility and lies to customers.

    • EightImmortals on 06/10/2018 - 11:18
      +1

      What did they lie about?

      • Rayve on 06/10/2018 - 11:34
        +1

        The claims in the blurb for this course for one: " The historicity of the resurrection is sure to tame any skeptic (outside and within)." Clearly that is not true or are you really saying that if I listened to this course I would suddenly accept the resurrection of Jesus as historical fact?

        Since they can't even tell the truth in their ad how can the content be trusted?

        But being from a 'university' that says the Earth is under 10,000 years old it is no surprise that they are pretty free with their interpretation of what 'facts' are.

        • EightImmortals on 06/10/2018 - 11:39
          +1

          So they haven't lied at all then. It's you have lied by denying their claim without even listening to any of the evidence and arguments presented?

          He even has a lecture just for people like you "A Priori Objections (Part 1)"

          Anyway, stupid conversation is stupid. Have a great weekend everyone. So far the info in the OP seems like a great resource for anyone who doesn't already know everything about the universe and a great excuse for a bun-fight for people who aren't secure enough to simply skip over a deal they have no interest in.

          • Rayve on 06/10/2018 - 11:46
            +1

            @EightImmortals: Ha- you are the one who believes you know all about the universe - not the skeptics. You know with all your heart that the whole universe was made by a being beyond time and space and that any evidence that contradicts your beliefs is wrong.

            On the other hand I am willing to learn new things and to say, 'I don't know.', when asked difficult questions. Recognising you don't know is surely better than putting up 'God did it' as some sort of universal answer and then stopping further study. Saying 'God did it' has no explanatory power - no more than saying 'Magic'. Provide evidence for your beliefs beyond faith or word salads. I can test my beliefs and throw them off if they are wrong. Can you claim the same?

            • EightImmortals on 06/10/2018 - 12:03

              @Rayve: Sure champ. Start a new thread with your claims and evidence and I'll check it out.

            • thelastnoob on 06/10/2018 - 13:41

              @Rayve: you have faith in the scientific impossibility that everything come from nothing
              you have faith in the men who assert the age of the universe but cannot figure out when a human life begins
              you virtually say 'nothing and time and chance' did it all

              • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 13:48
                +1

                @thelastnoob: To measure the age of the earth, you also assume laws of physic have not changed. Which can be a good assumption but not necessarily true. He admits on several occasion everything he knows on science can be wrong.

                • thelastnoob on 06/10/2018 - 13:57
                  +2

                  @gto21: Thanks my main point was to show that Atheists use the same as what they accuse us of

                  ie We don't know therefore God
                  we don't know therefore nothing/time/chance

                  and also to show that faith in scientists is unwise even if they have a majority view

                  • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 14:11
                    +1

                    @thelastnoob: It's not a majority. Around 50% of scientist agrees with the theistic worldview or at least some aspect of it. That does not include the agnostic. A lot of time those speaking about scientist are actually misrepresenting what the majority of scientist actually believes.

                    • Rayve on 06/10/2018 - 14:45

                      @gto21: The vast majority of elite scientist though are atheists. More than 90%. Many of the 'scientists' brought forward as supporting things like creation are not experts in the fields they are talking about. There is a reason that men have moved away from the 'God did it' model of everything. It is called science. It produces demonstrable results. Please provide 1 demonstrable example of something where 'God does this' is the explanation supported by genuine evidence and not mere assertion. Just one where the accepted answer, except by believers is, 'Supernatural forces are at play'. Anything that anyone can actually put to the test?

                      • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 15:05

                        @Rayve: 17% of scientist are atheist. That's not a vast majority lol.

                      • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 15:09

                        @Rayve: Can you show where you're getting the information that 90% of "elite" scientist are atheist? And explain who decide who is an elite scientist?

                        • kelza83 on 07/10/2018 - 22:43

                          @gto21: Just wanna add that most people with a reference of “elite” are usually into some weird satanic ritual style religion anyway. Aka freemasonry, bohemian grove etc.

                      • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 15:12
                        +1

                        @Rayve: Is the " scientific creationism" included in what you call the field of "creation"?

                      • ozhunter on 06/10/2018 - 15:13
                        +1

                        @Rayve: Elite scientists/Experts? What makes them so?

                        Found this http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

                        Is evolution demonstrable?

                        • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 15:24
                          +1

                          @ozhunter: I thought its a well-known fact. As the pew research shows "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. "

                          • yanman on 07/10/2018 - 12:30

                            @gto21: 51%?? You consider that high given the average age of scientists today? It's dropping daily. Just like it's dropping in all developed countries.

                      • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 15:27

                        @Rayve: All those scientists surveyed in the field of biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy. Have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to creation?

                        • SBOB on 06/10/2018 - 16:04
                          +1

                          @gto21:

                          I thought its a well-known fact.

                          peer reviewed article link required

                          • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 16:35

                            @SBOB: Are facts determine only by peer review?

                            • SBOB on 06/10/2018 - 16:39
                              +2

                              @gto21:

                              Are facts determine only by peer review?

                              no, baseless claims on forums are also accepted

                              • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 16:45
                                -3

                                @SBOB: A claim can only be based on a peer review?

                              • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 17:26
                                -2

                                @SBOB: I'll give you the answer although I think the question is flawed. Someone showed a survey before. Did you know peer review use survey as a psychological and social scientific research? For instance, you will find RAAS Survey 2005 in "JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION" showing only 36.6 of scientist believe that there a conflict between religion and science. Reference: ECKLUND, E. H. AND PARK, J. Z.
                                Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists? Ecklund, E. and Park, J. (2009). Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(2).

                              • kelza83 on 07/10/2018 - 22:45
                                -1

                                @SBOB: Where is your peer reviewed article proving that creationism is incorrect?

              • Oracle128 on 08/10/2018 - 00:04
                +1

                @thelastnoob: "you have faith in the scientific impossibility that everything come from nothing"

                A) No, atheism doesn't make that claim. It makes no claims at all about the origins of the universe.
                B) You accuse atheists of believing that and say how ridiculous it is, but isn't that precisely what Christians believe? If something can't come from nothing, then where did your god come from, and from what did it create the universe?

                "you have faith in the men who assert the age of the universe but cannot figure out when a human life begins"
                Yes, because they back their position with evidence. Also, they can tell you exactly the moment human life begins. It just depends on your definition of "human" and "life". Which are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.
                Also, because we judge people on the merits of their individual claims, and not merely whether they have an answer for everything no matter how ridiculous.
                Meanwhile, you believe the fanciful stories of bronze-age goat herders, backed only by a book so old and vague that it's a wonder anyone can make any sense of it, which I guess is why even among its most adherent followers, no two people can agree on its interpretation. A book that disagrees with pretty much everything we know about the natural world.

                "you virtually say 'nothing and time and chance' did it all"
                Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of evolution, not sure how that helps, but very courageous of you!

          • RubenM on 06/10/2018 - 19:00
            +2

            @EightImmortals: "the evidence"
            There is no evidence, that's the whole point, that's why lots of us are atheists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Religions are all claims and zero proof!

            Show me your zombie Jesus multiplying food and I too will be a christian. Given that all you have is a book of vengeful, hateful god with a fragile ego, that not only contradicts itself, but also logic and reasoning, I don't think I'll be taking communion any time soon though.

            • ozhunter on 06/10/2018 - 19:56

              @RubenM: No doubt you need to have faith to believe God/Divine Being created everything, but imo you need more faith to believe in big bang theory/evolution.

              Maybe the Bible is just a fairy tale. I guess 40 or so people over a thousand years wrote it just for fun. All other historical literature must be real and the Bible must be fake. If you can believe in evolution, you can believe in anything.

              Do any atheists believe Jesus existed?

              • SBOB on 06/10/2018 - 20:28
                +1

                @ozhunter:

                but imo you need more faith to believe in big bang theory/evolution.

                you mean scientific theories that can be observed, tested and reinforced via scientific testing
                evolution can be seen in some examples in a single persons life time (eg peppered moths)
                big bang 'theory' is, as the name says, a theory, but based on measurements of space, movements of objects within it etc etc it can be shown that they're trajectories came from common 'central' position (but its a theory, like all science.. open to retesting, observation, and reinforcement, refinement or correction)

                yep, way more 'faith' required :/

                Do any atheists believe Jesus existed?

                existed as a person, which performed many good deeds, had 'followers' who 'believed' in his spiritual leadership/origins and was the basis for many a gospel/fable .. sure
                born by miraculous conception, turned water into wine, walked on water, performed countless 'healing' miracles, or rose from death…. thats gonna be a hard nope

                • gto21 on 07/10/2018 - 00:01
                  -1

                  @SBOB: "testing evolution can be seen" Peppered Moths lol, I also have seen people talking about fox and plant. All of them are not evidence for evolution. If they were sufficient evidence it won't be a theory. Since we agree its a theory, all your so-called evidence does not prove evolution. A scientist can be moved from one theory to another theory. It's not always "refinement or correction" it can be a change to a different theory. The issue with the big bang is not if it occurred. The main issue is everything is created from nothing. It's a scientific improbability. I agree with him, you need more faith to be an atheist. A lot of atheists/agnostic agrees Jesus existed and died. For 2000 years we had alternative theories to the resurrection. And a case for the resurrection has been presented. I thought the probability of it happening was higher than not happening while I was an agnostic. We have an expert talking about it in a 30 session course, we on ozbargain are not expert on the topic like him. Watch the video, and come up with stronger arguments against the resurrection. And you will be the first one in 2000 years.

                  • SBOB on 07/10/2018 - 07:50
                    +1

                    @gto21:

                    If they were sufficient evidence it won't be a theory

                    Ah, I forgot from previous threads that you didn't understand what scientific theory meant..

                    Considering you still don't get it, and being a theory is still your rebuttal, enjoy your good book and doing what the good book says…

                    "I know the Good Book's good because
                    The Good Book says it's good
                    I know the Good Book knows it's good
                    Because a really good book would"

                    :/

                    • gto21 on 07/10/2018 - 12:05
                      -1

                      @SBOB: You never answered my question when asked about the peer review. But I still provide a journal for it. And you were quiet. If I do fall for the diversion tactic of "what is a theory?" It will still lead to an inability to answer questions, silence and more diversion tactics. In summary, wasting time. Enjoy the remaining of your day :)

                • ozhunter on 07/10/2018 - 15:20

                  @SBOB:

                  you mean scientific theories that can be observed, tested and reinforced via scientific testing
                  evolution can be seen in some examples in a single persons life time (eg peppered moths)

                  because it changed it's color, it evolved? My person question is when/how/why did everything stop evolving and started to reproduced after it's own kind.

                  but based on measurements of space, movements of objects within it etc etc it can be shown that they're trajectories came from common 'central' position

                  Even that would no way near prove how the earth and other planets came into being, let alone life itself.

                  existed as a person, which performed many good deeds, had 'followers' who 'believed' in his spiritual leadership/origins and was the basis for many a gospel/fable .. sure

                  Must have been such an extremely nice guy to do all these (undocumented?) incredibly good deeds that people would follow/worship Him as God. I do wonder what good things he could have done that were so exceptionally good in his ~33 years, not like he was rich or anything.

                • kelza83 on 07/10/2018 - 22:48

                  @SBOB: “you mean scientific theories that can be observed, tested and reinforced via scientific testing
                  evolution can be seen in some examples in a single persons life time (eg peppered moths)”

                  Do you a: understand that no humans were there to see the beginning of time/space/“evolution” as you like to call it?
                  And b: do you understand the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution and that the two are completely different? That One can be proven the other cannot?

              • Oracle128 on 08/10/2018 - 01:28
                +1

                @ozhunter: "but imo you need more faith to believe in big bang theory/evolution"
                Let's say that's true. It's not, but the religious don't seem to really care about what's true, but for the sake of argument let's say it is.

                What's wrong with that? You say that as if faith were a bad thing. Isn't Christianity all about how faith is so good that it's better than actual evidence or reason? Isn't "faith" the number one reason that every Christian believes in God, when you really boil down to the crux of their beliefs?

                Why it's almost like, deep down, you really do know how bad faith is as a means of determining truth, so you use as a stick to beat your opponent when it no longer becomes convenient.
                Faith is great! God will reward me for my faith in Him! I don't need evidence, I have faith in the Lord! Oh it takes more faith to believe in evidence-based peer-reviewed science than my magical sky daddy! You have faith in science and that's bad! What kind of idiot uses faith?

                You can't have a more textbook example of cognitive dissonance than a religious person who uses the old "it takes more faith to believe in science" argument.
                Especially so when made on a computer, over the internet…you know, technologies that wouldn't exist without science…

                • ozhunter on 08/10/2018 - 01:57
                  +1

                  @Oracle128: Lol, you talk as if science is infallible. It's like every other week, some foods that are good for you are now bad. So many conflicting "scientific studies"

                  Oh it takes more faith to believe in evidence-based peer-reviewed science

                  Seems to be that science is your god. Just read this the other day https://www.dailywire.com/news/36784/shapiro-newsweek-genius…

                  you know, technologies that wouldn't exist without science…

                  Christians believe in science lol, but not hoaxes like evolution.

                  Have any links that summarize how we evolved? When/Why it stopped? As far as we can observe, humans, cats, dogs, etc all reproduce after its own kind.

            • gto21 on 06/10/2018 - 23:35
              -1

              @RubenM: That's a false statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". It fails to understand all of the factors that play into assessing the probability of an event. If that were true we could never adequate evidence for extraordinarily improbable events. For example a pick in the lottery against which the odds are millions to one. The evidence or the reliability of the evening news would be swamped by the improbability of the event reported; so that we would never be able to believe the report on the news that the number actually pick. So this would lead to skepticism concerning non-supernatural and highly improbable events. What probability theorists came to understand is that you also need to consider how likely would the evidence be if the event had not occurred. If that probability is sufficiently low it can counterbalance any intrinsic improbability. Concerning the resurrection, you need to consider how probable would, for example, the empty tomb, the post-modem appearances, the disciple believes in the resurrection and death if the resurrection has not occurred. If their no resurrection those facts would be enormously improbable in contrast if the resurrection occurred they would be very probable. You don't need extraordinary evidence to show extraordinary claims. You just need to show the probable on the hypothesis then it would be on the denial of the hypothesis. Just that false statement took about a paragraph. Obviously, I'm not going to write an essay to everyone asking a question to prove my point, that why we have a free 30 session course. Watch the videos, as a 30 session course instead of asking questions which might require writing an essay or a book. If you have questions after watching, you have places for this kind of discussion. For example, you can ask here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/acts17apologetics/. And Dr. Gary Habermas is one of the best on this topic, we on ozbargain are not considered one of the best theologian on the topic.

              • RubenM on 07/10/2018 - 08:45
                +2

                @gto21: The statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, is very much a valid one.
                The fact that an INDIVIDUAL won the lottery jackpot with a single ticket is very unlikely. The probability of someone out of the millions of tickets bought won the jackpot is reasonably likely.
                So if you tell me that someone won the lottery, I'll accept that, if you tell me YOU won $50M, I'll say that I don't believe this extraordinary claim without proof.
                You talk about a denial of a hypothesis. If you claim to have won the lottery, it's not up to me to hack your bank account to show the balance is really $231.43, it's on you showing me your bank balance or the winning lottery ticket.

                Also, since you use this as an example: There are tens of millions of deaths every year (and that's humans only), yet you only speak of one single resurrection. Why aren't there any more zombies around?
                Maybe instead of burying loved ones, we should start keeping them in the spare room. Just in case they get resurrected and you wouldn't want them to wake up in a coffin, would you?

                This ridiculous example shows just how ridiculous I, and atheists in general, find your beliefs.
                Obviously I won't be watching any of the videos that try and push a religion that has caused so much suffering in this world.

                • gto21 on 07/10/2018 - 11:40
                  -1

                  @RubenM: You just gave me the evidence that an ordinary proof is sufficient. Someone winning the lottery can easily provide a bank statement. He will be able to provide bank statement on a regular basis. With technology even on daily basis. Nothing extraordinary providing a bank statement. You gave me an example which refute your whole argument. By definition a lot of miracle are rare. We won't consider them as miracle if it happens on a regular basis. You also believe in miracle that everything is created out of nothing. You want to see ressurection around you. Let's apply the same standard of evidence on your worldview. I want to see things created out of nothing around me. As a result the same level of evidence you ask from others, when apply to you. Your own worldview will fall apart. Inconsistency is a sign of a fail argument. No one is pushing a religion on you. No one is forcing you lol. If you don't want to watch its fine, its just a suggestion. But at least your honest you don't want to watch and listen. As a result I know no point talking to someone who already make up his mind. I'm planning to listen to a lecture by a scientist "against" the Kalam cosmological argument. I have no problem listening to the arguments from the other side. For now, I don't have enough fair to be an atheist. Enjoy your day :).

            • gto21 on 07/10/2018 - 03:00

              @RubenM: And that was just a "summary" on why the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is flawed. It's not even the full answer.

              • RubenM on 07/10/2018 - 12:37

                @gto21: A genuine bank statement showing $50M is extraordinary proof.
                Do you have one? No, nor do I and most likely none of the people reading this comment do either.

        • yanman on 07/10/2018 - 12:34
          +2

          Occam's Razor is all you need to apply here.

          In pure logic all that exists is the belief in your brain. Nothing beyond it is proven, therefore can be discarded as pure imagination unless countered by some evidence.

          Where did the belief come from? Did it appear itself or was it a social meme passed on through people and media? The latter. It is a social construct and exists in the human mind.

          If a text book on organic chemistry was written by an alien species, if translated to English it would be more or less exactly the same as our own. That's because it is a constantly refined summary of the natural world. It will always be the same if the findings are accurately tested. Religion is merely a social meme existing in the mind.

          To say it's purely stories is one thing, but it has had it's uses in the past - explaining why it came to be, and spread like a virus so quickly and powerfully among human cultures. But it's use is past us now I think.

          • RubenM on 07/10/2018 - 12:40

            @yanman: Well, beyond "cognitive ergo sum" (I think therefore I am), I definitely agree.

            Not very practical though…
            But it does show that a healthy scepticism is something that is important.

            • yanman on 07/10/2018 - 12:42
              +1

              @RubenM: There is plenty in life to be sceptical about, but so much more to learn. I don't spend any thought on the validity of these stories myself. I don't find they offer me anything i need.

              In psychological terms it has arguably benefited some people. In economic terms it has coorced groups of people to be more productive. BUt unfortunately those benefits are now achievable without the negative sides of religion of which there are and have been so terribly many and destructive beyond belief.

              Hypothetical…. Consider an economic proposal in 2050 from an AI talking to a child who asks about religion. The AI can say - would you like me to make one for you? I'll make sure it includes all the positive things from historical human religions but none of the bad. You can believe it, and it might inspire you or give you comfort in hard times, but know that it is wholly artificial and created by me. Do you think the child would be any better off with that than some traditional one? :p I suspect the smart children we have today will say, aah no thanks - I'll keep my fiction as fiction.

            • yanman on 07/10/2018 - 12:51

              @RubenM: That's a good quote when you think about it.. the thinking makes real the thought. So when we think in terms of memes - which is a broad term I think.. you could say that thinking makes the meme real. Communication spreads it. Visual and written art give it form.

              • RubenM on 07/10/2018 - 12:54

                @yanman: It does help some people, especially when it comes to mourning their dead or their own fear of dying.
                For me personally, I'd choose a harsh truth over a comforting lie any day of the week.

            • gto21 on 07/10/2018 - 13:06

              @RubenM: I never claim to have $50m. You wrote earlier "if you tell me someone". Well if that person had the money. Getting a bank statement is simple. Its not an extraordinary proof. Whether its 10m, 25m, 50m they all can provide a simple ordinary bank statement to supprt their claim.

              • RubenM on 07/10/2018 - 13:09

                @gto21: You're not getting it. Not sure whether it's by choice or not, but I'll leave it here.
                You can't use rational arguments against irrational beliefs.

                • gto21 on 07/10/2018 - 13:18

                  @RubenM: True claiming a bank statment is extraordinary is irrational. You can't ask me to show $50m when I never make that claim, it's irrational.

                  • RubenM on 07/10/2018 - 13:21

                    @gto21: Okay

                  • yanman on 07/10/2018 - 14:03

                    @gto21: Religious belief does rely on some irrational thought though.

                    • gto21 on 07/10/2018 - 17:14
                      -2

                      @yanman: Hi, thank you for replying to my comment. Unfortunately, I don't remember asking for your opinion.

      • RubenM on 06/10/2018 - 11:47
        +1

        A resurrection, for example.

        • yanman on 07/10/2018 - 14:20

          There's buddhists in my family who sort of believe reincarnation but they don't stress it too much. What I see they mainly benefit from is the positive messages in the philosophy - they get taught how good behavior to other people and ourselves benefits everyone, basically. And methods to deal with the chaotic nature of life. As for any stories of people who might have been before and things that defy science that part isn't really significant.

  • Xetrok on 06/10/2018 - 14:00
    +4

    Something for the forums or not at all perhaps?

  • MEDBEDb on 06/10/2018 - 14:02

    Good post, thanks op, downloading

  • yanman on 06/10/2018 - 15:05
    +2

    Stop posting these. They're not bargains. Noone is looking for them, they know they'll be given away free anyway.

  • Himesama21 on 06/10/2018 - 16:26
    +2

    Not a deal, you know it, everyone knows it.
    https://www.quora.com/Is-lying-to-yourself-a-sin

  • FabMan on 06/10/2018 - 18:50

    Did the Romans respawn kill? I hate those campers.

  • Scrooge McDuck on 06/10/2018 - 19:08
    +2

    One only has to read the first few lines of the Bible to determine that it is historically inaccurate. This deal is a colossal waste of time at best.

  • 0jay on 06/10/2018 - 19:36
    +4

    Negged just for the sheer fact of the jesus fans' utter cluelessness as to how to defend (or discuss) their religion.

  • dylo on 07/10/2018 - 08:33
    +2

    Negged, OP has been asked to provide evidence supporting this "deal" and has not provided any. For some of us these posts are offensive and provide no benefit to the OzBargain community.

  • imcold on 07/10/2018 - 20:13

    Well religion is certainly not free.

    Its likely to cost hours of your hours of your life each week. And probably a lot more money.

    If you do decide to pick a religion.

    Make sure you you pick one that doesn't have intelligent design. 99.99% of species on Earth are now extinct. An all knowing god wouldn't have a 99.99% failure rate with his/her creation.

    If any human had a 99.99% failure rate at doing his job. I'd be embarrassed to share the same multiverse as him.

    I'm yet to be convince about teleporting undead wizard mages that like taking 2000 year vacations

  • skelty on 08/10/2018 - 00:33

    For the people posting that no-one is looking for this stuff or why is this posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Australia
    states: " In the 2016 Census, 52.1% of Australians were listed as Christian.."
    I think a course that may apply to more than half the population (not including non-Christian people that may be using this for philosophy or history courses / study) is a reasonable thing to post. The post even tells you how to hide from your feed. Y'all should chill. Making Australians look less tolerant.

    • dealhunt on 08/10/2018 - 18:14
      • Making Australians look less tolerant
        Typical language used by church pals by discriminating against sane people who were not brainwashed about resuscitation or about a virgin woman who had a child and it's still virgin.
        And everyone knows that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone as well as several people in US have been sued for making misleading and fake editing on Wikipedia.
      • skelty on 08/10/2018 - 21:25

        http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/mediareleasesbyRelea…

        Is your point now moot? Your comment is a little provocative and inflammatory. Are you trying to prove my point on tolerance for me?

        • dealhunt on 08/10/2018 - 21:42
          • provocative and inflammatory

          Cool down mate, if the truth hurts you, that is not my fault.

          • skelty on 09/10/2018 - 10:09

            @dealhunt: I'm chill m8, u obviously either trolling or pretty set on your personal beliefs so ima leave you to your own business since my point still stands ;)

            • dealhunt on 09/10/2018 - 19:47

              @skelty: Firstly try not to use chat lazy like writing, secondly I replayed to your Wikipedia misleading claim, thirdly I don't care about more pointless links your friend and you keep posting so my point still stands and especially that resurrection is for brainwashed people not for sane people.

              • gto21 on 10/10/2018 - 01:12

                @dealhunt: Brainwashed people are those who think their point still stands after showing them the ABS website. If you're going to reject a stat from Australian Bureau of Statistics just because you don't care. It's clear its a waste of time replying to you, I'll just ignore your message. Enjoy the rest of your week.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join