“It’s been my experience that most skeptics know very little about the claims of Christ or history’s confirmation of Him.”

It’s my experience that atheists know more about the bible on average than most christians. I’ve debated with members of the clergy and had to correct their understanding of the bible. And a recent pew research poll asked a few dozen general questions about the bible and religions and found that atheists/agnostics scored highest, followed by mormons, jews and only then christians. So yeah.

As far as people seeing jesus after getting hit on the head – seriously, nothing occurs to you that might explain that other than divine intervention? So-called “near death” experiences, including the resulting hallucinations, can be caused when someone is not in any danger of dying, they have been induced in test pilot centrifuges for decades and are a common by-product of reduced blood flow to the brain which induces a dream-like state. And our experiences and beliefs, thoughts and culture, as you know, are the fodder for our dreams, which is why these experiences are found in all cultures.

@bakersdozen2 - 

Your side is unsupported and inexplicable, my side is simple and plausible. And people see all kinds of things when they’re unconscious and especially when their brains are oxygen starved, often accompanied by a sense of euphoria. This is not miraculous. And what physical impossibilities have you given? Supposedly x happened, therefore y must be the cause (with no logic).

@mtngirlsouth - 

If someone came back from the grave I’d be impressed. Someone coming back from a bump on the head is not remotely as impressive.

And heaven must be a very uninteresting place if no one ever comes back with anything but vague emotions and conflicting imagery. Not to mention that if god brings you to heaven before you’re dead, isn’t that god making a mistake?

@TheTheologiansCafe - 

And if atheists and agnostics had not been lumped together had been further broken down into seven different sub-groups, one might just as easily been higher than white evangelicals. But they weren’t. Atheists and agnostics averaged 6.7, christians averaged 6.2. And of all the breakdowns of christians only 1 in 7 groups scored higher than atheists/agnostics.

@Simian_Musings@revelife - 

Knowing more about the bible is how most people stop believing it’s true. And condescension is not a form of argument, nor is a false negative stereotype less bigoted just because it’s found in scripture.

@FirstxChairxOrchxDork - 

Countless other religions have more reliable firsthand, verified eye witnesses to their miracles, the book of mormon has sworn, signed statements by people who were interviewed at the time by newspapers attesting to the miracles of joseph smith, seeing an angel appear before him etc. You gonna convert to mormonism?

Then don’t pretend eye witness accounts of extraordinary claims are credible without corroborating evidence.

@FirstxChairxOrchxDork - 

@bakersdozen2 - 

Actually jesus is treated by secular historians exactly like alexander the great. The mundane claims about their lives are accepted as likely being true, especially if corroberated, while the supernatural claims about alexander (fulfilling biblical and other prophecies, being the son of zeus and olympias, immaculate conception, virgin birth, officially declared a deity etc) are not accepted by historians.

They are treated absolutely the same. By everyone but christians, of course. Just as modern believers in zeus might have a different take on alexander.

@bakersdozen2 - 

And the new testament borrows heavily from jewish scripture, what is your point? And what does character have to do with anything I said? If someone is depicted as a good person that means any miracle claim about them is accurate?

I’m talking about historicity, not whether x person is a good role model.

You never deal with what I say, you always change the subject.

@bakersdozen2 - 

The spine isn’t connected to the brain, it’s connected to the brain stem which is connected to the brain. No doctor would try to connect the spine to the brain any more than they would try to connect the stomach to the mouth. And if the spine had no connection to the brain through the brain stem the kid would be dead – the surgeons wouldn’t open him up expecting there to be no connection from the brain to the organs, thinking they were operating on a corpse and be surprised that the brain stem was in-tact. Me thinks you’re getting the story through a certain lense. And you know the kid is paralyzed from the neck down right? he believes angels saved him – apparently they do shoddy work.

And I can’t find this x-ray anywhere on the internet.

@warrior_poet15 - 

You condescended to me, pretended to correct me, but not once actually contradicted anything I said. Where was anything I said inaccurate? You “corrected” me by stating that the spine is connected to the skull, what I said was that the spine is not connected to the brain, except through the brainstem. And I stated that if the boy’s brain had no connection to his organs he would be dead and they would not be shocked to find it the case only after cutting him open.

If that is medically incorrect, please correct it. But until you do, do not condescend to me just because I am not convinced something magical transpired. The boy was saved by doctors, not a negation of the properties of physics. Something I would think you would appreciate.

And if you’ve seen the x-ray and are a qualified physician, do you concur that the boy was necessarily dead when it was taken?

@CoderHead - 

I’m thinking the same thing. I’m scratching my head thinking “where did you correct me on anything I said?”

@bakersdozen2 - 

Change my tone how exactly? I was far more polite than he was to me. I did not insult or condescend to him once, as he did to me.

And the claim is not just that the boy died, but that he died, went to heaven, and then miraculously came back from the dead.

“Here this child DID come back from the dead, yet you explain it away.”

- mtngirlsouth

This blog is, in your words, a refutation of the position that there is “nothing beyond the grave”.

@bakersdozen2 - 

“His point was that he was not pronounced “clinically dead”.”

And your assertion is that he died, went to heaven and then miraculously came back to life. Your assertion is wrong.

“When the paramedics came on the scene there is testimony from more than one individual that he didn’t appear to be breathing from their perspective outside of the car.”

Your point?

“What the child describes is having visited heaven.”

When I am unconscious I see things that aren’t real every single night. The same thing very often happens when you’re unconscious for medical reasons. Where is the miracle?

“Since medical personal were not there from the moment of impact, the question of whether or not he was “clinically dead” at some point after the impact is a mute point.”

Moot point, not mute. Not saying this to score point, just thought you might want to know. And it’s not a moot point, unless you’re now changing your claim to something with even less evidence to support it, that he died, went to heaven, came back and was miraculously brought back to life before he was seen supposedly not breathing and supposedly with a detached brain. In which case there is no reason to suspect he ever died, and every reason to suspect he didn’t.

“My husband was addressing your earlier point about what constitutes clinical death. He then mentioned that he has seen people who were “clinically dead” revive and leave the hospital.”

Clinical death is not death. Death isn’t the cessation of a pulse or breathing etc, people come back from that every day. Death is the permanent cessation of those things. If someone wakes up, they didn’t die.

“In this particular child’s case he was assessing the x-ray found in the book and giving his professional opinion as one who has looked at a ton of x-rays in his long career. It puzzles me that you would complain about being “condescended to”. The fact is, he is in a position to speak to you out of his vast experience. In other words, regarding medical knowledge, you are in an inferior position to him. You should be willing to concede that point.”

Of course. However he acted as though I was a moron who he needed to correct and then said nothing that contradicted with what I had already said. I’m sorry, but being a doctor does not give you the right to automatically treat people as inferiors, especially not when they’ve not said anything that is not accurate. It is as if I, a layman, had said “E equals MC squared” and he, a physicist said “No, I know WAY more about physics than YOU and to correct your ignorant statement energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.”

The two statements mean exactly the same thing, and that physicist would be acting like a jerk regardless of superior qualifications.

“If he says the x-ray, indicates a separation that is considered fatal, then I wouldn’t squabble with that.”

He didn’t, he said that kind of injury is usually fatal. You are squabbling with that.

“As far as Coderhead is concerned he wasn’t addressing medical comments that he had made. He was replying to his complaint about surviving the type of injury this child had with his experience in dealing with patients post traumatic injury.”

Then say that to him.

“And your tone, is combative.”

I am only combative because I don’t like being talked down to for no reason, and I don’t enjoy taking the time to deal with every syllable of someone’s response to me only to have 95% of what I have said ignored each and every time.

“I understand you don’t believe there is life after death. That’s fine; you’re welcome to hold whatever position you care to, but when someone interjects their professional opinion; you should recognize that they may in fact have a superior knowledge of these types of events.”

Show me where he contradicted anything I said and I’ll gladly defer to his judgement. Show me where anything I said was wrong. Seriously, I’m waiting.

@bakersdozen2 - 

“Show me where he contradicted anything I said and I’ll gladly defer to his judgement. Show me where anything I said was wrong. Seriously, I’m waiting.”

Still waiting.

“You’re ignoring his professional opinion, so it’s difficult to take your layman analysis seriously.”

Show me what I’ve ignored and I will shut up this second.