Because your religion is wrong.
Get updates
Render unto Caesar
Godspeak
What evangelical apologists are still trying to show... is that their version of the resurrection was the most compatible with accepting all the details of the gospel Easter narratives as true and non-negotiable... [D]efenders of the resurrection assume that their opponents agree with them that all the details are true, that only the punch line is in question. What they somehow do not see is that to argue thus is like arguing that the Emerald City of Oz must actually exist since, otherwise, where would the Yellow Brick Road lead?... We simply have no reason to assume that anything an ancient narrative tells us is true.
The Case Against the Case for Christ, (pp. 209-210)
Spread the Gospel
Spake the people
-
NO! So good for Japan; let's hope the US follows.
-
Maybe it's only because I've been away from the sect for so long, but I hadn't considered the...
-
Thanks for posting and creating an awareness of the Jehovah's Witnesses *blood...
-
Jehovah's Witnesses are unpopular for many reasons, none of which matched the early church...
-
Good points.
Naturally, theists may try to respond to those points. But if I may...
Hymn book
If I may toot my own shofar, a few of the posts I like best:
I think the Leprechaun Test is especially harsh on any arguments full of meaningless gobbledegook (like the one I quoted); it shows just how empty the claims are. But you got me thinking: In the interest of a real debate (to the extent that one can be had), what would be an example of a pro-God argument that won't let us doubters replace "God" with "Leprechaun" (or "Odin" or "Vishnu" or whatever)? I can't think of one. If I could, I'd happily suggest that believers stick to that argument; if nothing else, it'd lift the debate a wee bit out of its usual silliness.