I was told this yesterday elsewhere.
How are Christians so damned stupid that they can;t understand that we can;t hate what we don;t beleive.
I also had some dumb twat tell me that we knew that god existed even if we didn't believe it...how does that work?
Consider the following:
You are approached by someone taking an opinion poll. They ask for your political affiliation. Are you a Republican?
Maybe you voted for an independent in the last election. (Or maybe you didn't vote at all) So you answer "No." But the person taking the poll only has two checkboxes on their form. One for Republican, and another one for Democrat. If you're not one then you must be the other.
This is the sort of way that religious people think. A religious person will want to know if you worship their god. If you don't worship their god, then that worship box still needs to be filled. And in the binary mind of the theist anyone that doesn't worship their god must worship the antithesis. And if you don't love their god, you must therefore hate their god. They don't understand the concept of not worshipping something. Let alone the alien concept of you not believing in any kind of god figure.
Edit:
Which kind of leads on to
QuoteI also had some dumb twat tell me that we knew that god existed even if we didn't believe it...how does that work?
In the theists mind, you know about god. Everyone does. In the mind of the theist it's a universal truth. Therefore in light of this fact, you're aware of gods existence, you just choose not to acknowledge it.
They can't imagine anyone NOT believing in God. It is all they have known their whole lives. They grew up in a Christian family where nobody questions or doubts that God exists because this is a fact that is simply taken for granted, like the sun rising every morning. And the wider culture, by and large, accept it, too. Almost everyone in America worships God--if not the Christian deity, then some other one, or more than one. Thus, when the Christian encounters someone who believes in no gods at all, it throws them for a loop. You might as well say that you think the sun doesn't really rise every morning. Of course, you can see the sun and you can't see God, but that is irrelevant to the bewildered and baffled believer. To settle their minds, they have to come up with an explanation that suits them, and "You really do believe in God, you just hate him" fits their ideology just fine. It is not in their intellect simply to accept that some people really mean what they say with, "No, I really just don't believe in God."
Quote from: "ApostateLois"To settle their minds, they have to come up with an explanation that suits them, and "You really do believe in God, you just hate him" fits their ideology just fine. It is not in their intellect simply to accept that some people really mean what they say with, "No, I really just don't believe in God."
For what it's worth:
A guy I knew in Alcoholics Anonymous used to repeatedly say, "There is a God and you ain't him."
Now he was talking to a group of believers, not to me. In my head, I always had the same reaction, "Yeah? So?" He was obviously very pleased with himself being so eloquent and all. As for the rest of the group, they would just nod their heads knowingly, because they always nodded their heads when someone said something about God that sounded profound to them. As for me, as an atheist, it was just a meaningless statement.
It's very hard to work up enough energy to bother getting inside their minds to figure out what they're thinking. I think they live in a happy chaos of disconnected thought processes. I really don't want to have that discussion with them.
I can't hate a fictional character but I prefer Santa . Santa is way nicer than the monster bible god.
Quote from: "leo"I can't hate a fictional character but I prefer Santa . Santa is way nicer than the monster bible god.
I dunno man. An elderly man who breaks into people's houses and leaves "presents" for children? :-k Sounds kinda fishy.
Quote from: "leo"I can't hate a fictional character
Wanna put that to the test? :P
(//http://www.kenyabuzz.com/media/cache/15/cd/15cd2c3d5ac809d8a8783181292ebb92.jpg)
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :lol: #-o Oh that is a good one! =D> Solitary
Quote from: "sab"I was told this yesterday elsewhere.
How are Christians so damned stupid that they can;t understand that we can;t hate what we don;t beleive.
I also had some dumb twat tell me that we knew that god existed even if we didn't believe it...how does that work?
Keep in mind that faith is an act of pride. That's why they're such twats.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "leo"I can't hate a fictional character
Wanna put that to the test? :P
[ Image (//http://www.kenyabuzz.com/media/cache/15/cd/15cd2c3d5ac809d8a8783181292ebb92.jpg) ]
Ooh I love Joffrey- best character in asoiaf
Quote from: "sab"Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "leo"I can't hate a fictional character
Wanna put that to the test? :P
[ Image (//http://www.kenyabuzz.com/media/cache/15/cd/15cd2c3d5ac809d8a8783181292ebb92.jpg) ]
Ooh I love Joffrey- best character in asoiaf
How about this guy?
(//http://www.jabootu.com/images/d&dbluelips.JPG)
Wait a minute -- religionists practicing unnuanced thought?
Are you sure?
Atheist don't hate god. They basically ignore it for the myth it is. What Atheist hate is having a god foisted upon them. Explain that to your friend.
Well I fukn hate gods fat ass. U see I even lower cased it. Thats how much I hate him.
Christians just hate Horus, Zeus, Osiris, Ra, Marduk, Cthulhu...
Quote from: "leo"I can't hate a fictional character but I prefer Santa . Santa is way nicer than the monster bible god.
Me too and santa give you presents
God and Santa Claus do have a lot in common, though.
Both of them are said to live "up" somewhere--God up in the sky, and Santa at the North Pole, which as far "up" as you can go on the planet.
Both of them know everything about you.
Both of them reward good people and punish bad people--God with heaven or hell, Santa with either presents or coal.
Both of them apparently keep lists of all the good people, and if you aren't on the list, you don't get the reward.
Both are shown as really old men with long, white beards, yet are also ageless.
Both regard December 25 as special.
Both of them can perform miracles--God can do anything (supposedly), and Santa can travel the entire world in a single night in a magical sleigh, delivering gifts to billions of children.
Santa is still better, because God killed lots of people in the Bible, and Santa hardly ever kills anyone.
I like gods.
Edit: I meant dogs. I don't believe in gods, so I'm indifferent to them
I cant stop reading that as "Atheisms just hate God!", and that is annoying me.
Why do atheists hate God if God is real?
English isn't your first language is it?
Me?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Why do atheists hate God if God is real?
We don't. It's something we get accused of, but we don't actually hate fictional characters. We dislike a lot of the people who worship said characters, though.
If God is not fictional then why do you hate God?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"If God is not fictional then why do you hate God?
[youtube:3knq2jxa]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY[/youtube:3knq2jxa]
I don't see your picture for some reason.
I don't believe in god, so I don't hate him.
Just like I don't hate Zah?k, at least as he is portrayed in folklore, nor the demon Ahriman who corrupted him and was using him to bring darkness into the world, because they are mythological beings. There is no point in me hating beings who never existed (though to be fair to Zah?k, he was most likely based on a real ruler... unlike your god).
You do hate God if He exists.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"You do hate God if He exists.
Fortunately he doesn't.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"You do hate God if He exists.
But he doesn't. Just like Zah?k.
What sort of early texts or corroborating sources and badly needed eyewitness group accounts do you have for Zahak?
For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
And many places and events are multiply corroborated with Roman authorities, Jewish authorities and other writers. We even have writers such Clement of Rome and Polycarp who said they knew Paul and Peter personally before they were martyred in the Neronian persecutions. Peter was one of the eyewitnesses in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead proving He is God. He spent 3 years with Jesus.
Very little, the only text would be from the Shahnameh (1000 c.e.) of the ruler Zah?k, but references to the demon (Aži Dah?ka) from which his story was tied to (the demon most likely himself was just a very terrible person of the past that was mythologized) are scattered throughout Zoroastrian text and stories. Infact he is the most significant of the ažis in Zoroastrian texts, some of which date all the way back to the 500's b.c.e. .
I personally do not have the numbers for how often he is cited in Persian text because unfortunately I did not grow up in a culture that values that information like we value Jewish-Christian history, and on top of that much of Persia's culture has been integrated or irradiated by the cultures that have conquered them over the years. Obviously there are no eye-witness accounts because he was a mythological being, much like the angel who came down and told Mary she would be impregnated or what have you.
I do not know about Polycarp and Clement, so I won't remark on them, but I know several sources have been shown to be dubious at best if not out-right debunked. If you are not including them, and P&C are legit, then that is interesting but in no way proves the divinity of Christ.
That said, I buy very much into Reza Aslan's view of Christ, which many atheists disagree with; I think he likely was a man, or several men whom's stories and teachings were put into one, who grew up in the region attributed to him and said many of the things he said. However, just because a man named Yeshua existed and had followers does not make him divine.
Using that logic, you could just as easily argue that Muhammad was therefor divine, or Benny Hinn if we want to go more modern. There is more evidence of Muhammad existing (afaik) than Jesus, as well as his teachings (orders?), and yet this does not therefor make him divine. Likewise many people have claimed that Benny Hinn and that Moon fellow preformed miracles, but there is no evidence OF the miracles; only eyewitness accounts and hearsay.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Very little, the only text would be from the Shahnameh (1000 c.e.) of the ruler Zah?k, but references to the demon (Aži Dah?ka) from which his story was tied to (the demon most likely himself was just a very terrible person of the past that was mythologized) are scattered throughout Zoroastrian text and stories. Infact he is the most significant of the ažis in Zoroastrian texts, some of which date all the way back to the 500's b.c.e.
When were these events suppose to have taken place?
QuoteObviously there are no eye-witness accounts because he was a mythological being, much like the angel who came down and told Mary she would be impregnated or what have you.
We don't need to worry about an angel speaking to Mary, because this naturally follows from the main proof that group hallucinations of the eyewitness are impossible in 12 different group settings recorded in the Bible.
QuoteI think he likely was a man, or several men whom's stories and teachings were put into one
People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie, and all the Apostles were martyred for their eyewitness faith.
QuoteUsing that logic, you could just as easily argue that Muhammad was therefor divine, or Benny Hinn if we want to go more modern. There is more evidence of Muhammad existing (afaik) than Jesus, as well as his teachings (orders?), and yet this does not therefor make him divine. Likewise many people have claimed that Benny Hinn and that Moon fellow preformed miracles, but there is no evidence OF the miracles; only eyewitness accounts and hearsay.
There is no multiple group eyewitness testimony of Muhammad or Benny Hinn alive from the dead. Moreover, you know Muhammad was a liar, because he came along six centuries later and made a claim that Jesus never even went to the cross with nothing to support his claim. Benny Hinn is a fraud because of his "gibberish babble" and misuse of laying on of hands for show not for reality. Tongues are a gift of languages to spread the gospel to the nations, not gibberish babble that was used by a second century cult called Montanism.
Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity more than any 10 figures combined. This point is made not to prove Jesus is God, but to disallow you from claiming there is not enough sources.
What makes Jesus God is no man can resurrect himself. This proof the Bible gives us is the best proof you could ask for. You nor I can think of a better proof for God revealing Himself to us.
QuoteWhen were these events suppose to have taken place?
Long before 500 b.c.e.. They were not as interested in the historical truth of it happen but more of the morals and meanings of the stories.
QuotePeople don't willingly die for what they know is a lie, and all the Apostles were martyred for their eyewitness faith.
Just because they believed it to be true did not make it so though, even if it was eye witness. Men fought and died for Muhammad because they believed him to be a messenger of Allah, yet again this does not validate the divinity of him.
QuoteThere is no multiple group eyewitness testimony of Muhammad or Benny Hinn alive from the dead.
The only evidence we have of Jesus' rebirth is the story of several people who had their own agendas for telling that story. We do not have Jesus talking to record keepers, or even anyone outside of his group, post death.
QuoteJesus is the most documented person in antiquity more than any 10 figures combined.
That is just straight up wrong.
QuoteThis proof the Bible gives us is the best proof you could ask for.
How so? It is no more reliable than a Qu'ran, Torah or the Egyptian Book of the Dead because it was written by people trying to tell a story of morality, not of historical accuracy.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteWhen were these events suppose to have taken place?
Long before 500 b.c.e.. They were not as interested in the historical truth of it happen but more of the morals and meanings of the stories.
We can disregard that stuff then because there is no evidence and the texts are too many centuries later to have any credibility.
QuoteQuotePeople don't willingly die for what they know is a lie, and all the Apostles were martyred for their eyewitness faith.
Just because they believed it to be true did not make it so though, even if it was eye witness. Men fought and died for Muhammad because they believed him to be a messenger of Allah, yet again this does not validate the divinity of him.
What it does do is show they truly believed they were with Jesus for 40 days after His death so as not to be lying about it, but since group hallucinations are medically impossible, we know that it is true, proving Jesus is God. Whereas fighting for Muhammad can be a delusion, and most certainly is a delusion because Jesus died on the cross and Muhammad six centuries later said otherwise.
QuoteQuoteThere is no multiple group eyewitness testimony of Muhammad or Benny Hinn alive from the dead.
The only evidence we have of Jesus' rebirth is the story of several people who had their own agendas for telling that story. We do not have Jesus talking to record keepers, or even anyone outside of his group, post death.
You don not need to worry about Jesus' birth, like I said, because the main proof is in the eyewitness accounts, for which there is no naturalistic explanation, so you know Jesus resurrected Himself proving He is God. A virgin birth naturally follows.
QuoteQuoteJesus is the most documented person in antiquity more than any 10 figures combined.
That is just straight up wrong.
That is 100% fact. Jesus has 45 sources, 17 of which are non-Christian. Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus had the second most sources from antiquity, only 9 sources, within 150 years after the person's death.
QuoteQuoteThis proof the Bible gives us is the best proof you could ask for.
How so? It is no more reliable than a Qu'ran, Torah or the Egyptian Book of the Dead because it was written by people trying to tell a story of morality, not of historical accuracy.
Group eyewitness testimony of a person alive from the dead died who were martyred for that testimony is the best evidential proof you could ask for as you can think of no better. No such evidence is given for the Koran, Torah, Egyptian books. Like you said, they are just telling stories. And you know the Koran is wrong because its story is false that Jesus never went to the cross.
My faith is simple. The lawyer in the Guinness Book of Records who won 400 cases in a row said the best legal case he has ever seen in his life is for the life, death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus.
God will not fault you for giving your life to Christ because it is based on the best evidence of any religion.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"What sort of early texts or corroborating sources and badly needed eyewitness group accounts do you have for Zahak?
For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
And many places and events are multiply corroborated with Roman authorities, Jewish authorities and other writers. We even have writers such Clement of Rome and Polycarp who said they knew Paul and Peter personally before they were martyred in the Neronian persecutions. Peter was one of the eyewitnesses in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead proving He is God. He spent 3 years with Jesus.
Wrong. Jesus is not documented any more than Harry Potter or Frodo. You can't prove that Jesus is based on anything but an unknown historical person who was written about and elevated to deity by works of fiction. There is not one document written that can be proven to be anything but fiction, based on then current beliefs. Every single case you can make about the truth of Jesus has been presented here and shot down half a dozen times. The Bible is full of contradictions, every book was written in second or third person, and there is no corresponding, objective evidence to back it historically or any other way.
Objective evidence outside of what Christians claim does not support their claims, period.
Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"What sort of early texts or corroborating sources and badly needed eyewitness group accounts do you have for Zahak?
For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
And many places and events are multiply corroborated with Roman authorities, Jewish authorities and other writers. We even have writers such Clement of Rome and Polycarp who said they knew Paul and Peter personally before they were martyred in the Neronian persecutions. Peter was one of the eyewitnesses in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead proving He is God. He spent 3 years with Jesus.
Wrong. Jesus is not documented any more than Harry Potter or Frodo. You can't prove that Jesus is based on anything but an unknown historical person who was written about and elevated to deity by works of fiction. There is not one document written that can be proven to be anything but fiction, based on then current beliefs. Every single case you can make about the truth of Jesus has been presented here and shot down half a dozen times. The Bible is full of contradictions, every book was written in second or third person, and there is no corresponding, objective evidence to back it historically or any other way.
Objective evidence outside of what Christians claim does not support their claims, period.
Jesus has more sources of Him than any ten figures in antiquity combined. If He didn't exist then nobody did. Of those 45 ancient sources, 17 of them were non-Christian sources.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"What sort of early texts or corroborating sources and badly needed eyewitness group accounts do you have for Zahak?
For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
And many places and events are multiply corroborated with Roman authorities, Jewish authorities and other writers. We even have writers such Clement of Rome and Polycarp who said they knew Paul and Peter personally before they were martyred in the Neronian persecutions. Peter was one of the eyewitnesses in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead proving He is God. He spent 3 years with Jesus.
Wrong. Jesus is not documented any more than Harry Potter or Frodo. You can't prove that Jesus is based on anything but an unknown historical person who was written about and elevated to deity by works of fiction. There is not one document written that can be proven to be anything but fiction, based on then current beliefs. Every single case you can make about the truth of Jesus has been presented here and shot down half a dozen times. The Bible is full of contradictions, every book was written in second or third person, and there is no corresponding, objective evidence to back it historically or any other way.
Objective evidence outside of what Christians claim does not support their claims, period.
Jesus has more sources of Him than any ten figures in antiquity combined. If He didn't exist then nobody did. Of those 45 ancient sources, 17 of them were non-Christian sources.
lets see them.
Quote from: "stromboli"lets see them.
You can find them all nicely compiled in the award winning The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "stromboli"lets see them.
You can find them all nicely compiled in the award winning The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona.
Wrong. You came here, we didn't go to you. If you want to state your case on this forum you have to do exactly that. This was all started by you, either carry it through or leave.
Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "stromboli"lets see them.
You can find them all nicely compiled in the award winning The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona.
Wrong. You came here, we didn't go to you. If you want to state your case on this forum you have to do exactly that. This was all started by you, either carry it through or leave.
The burden is on you to show there are more sources for someone else than Jesus.
The burden proof is on you to prove your bullshit claims.
Quote from: "leo"The burden proof is in you to prove your bullshit claims.
I am not trying to prove a bulshit claim like claiming infinite regress.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "stromboli"lets see them.
You can find them all nicely compiled in the award winning The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona.
We want real sources . We don't care about bullshit books written by people with agendas.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "leo"The burden proof is in you to prove your bullshit claims.
I am not trying to prove a bulshit claim like claiming infinite regress.
No. You came here, you made the accusations, you made the claims. Your case. Present the evidence or STFU and leave. Go cry to daddy you didn't get your Barbie doll, waa.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "leo"The burden proof is in you to prove your bullshit claims.
I am not trying to prove a bulshit claim like claiming infinite regress.
Who is trying to prove that here ? You are the one making claims about your god and Jesus.
Quote from: "leo"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "leo"The burden proof is in you to prove your bullshit claims.
I am not trying to prove a bulshit claim like claiming infinite regress.
Who is trying to prove that here ? You are the one making claims about your god and Jesus.
I can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles, nor can you.
And infinite regress is impossible so is something from nothing.
Sounds like the peanut butter argument
Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"Sounds like the peanut butter argument
??
Look it up on youtube, I can't post it from a phone
Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"Look it up on youtube, I can't post it from a phone
Sure you can.
I am not trying to prove a bulshit claim like claiming infinite regress.[/quote]
Who is trying to prove that here ? You are the one making claims about your god and Jesus.[/quote]
I can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles, nor can you.
And infinite regress is impossible so is something from nothing.[/quote]
Who says that? The universe can't come from nothing but you god can ? If you want to be a chewtoy fine. We can play that game.
Quote from: "leo"The universe can't come from nothing but you god can ? If you want to be a chewtoy fine. We can play that game.
Where did I ever say God comes from nothing? God is uncreated.
Who ordered the christmas troll?
Be nice.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "leo"The universe can't come from nothing but you god can ? If you want to be a chewtoy fine. We can play that game.
Where did I ever say God comes from nothing? God is uncreated.
So is the universe.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"So is the universe.
The universe can't always have existed in an infinite past of cause and effects, because if it had, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space being uncreated.
Quoteif it had,
If once again.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"So is the universe.
The universe can't always have existed in an infinite past of cause and effects, because if it had, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space being uncreated.
Says who ? You ? Arguments from ignorance aren't evidence. :wink: :wink:
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"So is the universe.
The universe can't always have existed in an infinite past of cause and effects, because if it had, you would have happened already,
So why hadn't God created the universe sooner? What took him so long?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "leo"The universe can't come from nothing but you god can ? If you want to be a chewtoy fine. We can play that game.
Where did I ever say God comes from nothing? God is uncreated.
You are the one saying the universe can't come from nothing but your god can. :wink: :wink:
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "leo"The universe can't come from nothing but you god can ? If you want to be a chewtoy fine. We can play that game.
Where did I ever say God comes from nothing? God is uncreated.
So is the universe.
Yep ^^^ this.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Be nice.
We are being extremely nice. But patience for the ignorant blather you keep repeating is going to grow thin. If you have proof, actual 100% verifiable proof, bring it. But 'I don't know how it happened therefore God did it' ain't proof and so far, that seems to be all you've got.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
We have a number of texts written about Abraham Lincoln also written with 150 years of his death, not to mention a few movies. Using your logic, we'd have to conclude that Honest Abe really did hunt vampires and that the American Civil War was actually instigated by them.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
But none to a contemporary, primary source, much less to the guy himself. Contrast this with a figure like Julius Caesar, who not only has contemporary documentation, but we also have his own writings.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Why do atheists hate God if God is real?
God is not real. None of the gods are real.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"You do hate God if He exists.
Now you're are just being an ass. You can't say that people hate something when they have stated over and over that they don't.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"What sort of early texts or corroborating sources and badly needed eyewitness group accounts do you have for Zahak?
For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
And many places and events are multiply corroborated with Roman authorities, Jewish authorities and other writers. We even have writers such Clement of Rome and Polycarp who said they knew Paul and Peter personally before they were martyred in the Neronian persecutions. Peter was one of the eyewitnesses in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead proving He is God. He spent 3 years with Jesus.
Bullshit. Besides the bible there isn't even one account of jesus specifically. Oh there is Jesus of Nazereth but that makes no sense because there were a great many of those and The jesus of the bible couldn't have even been that jesus as the Roman census accounts for where people live not where they were born or once lived. There are no accounts outside the bible of a jesus. The ones made after his death or the bible's account of his life and death are all referenced from the bible and that makes them hearsay and invalid as reliable sources. BTW the bible isn't a valid source either because it is PURE hearsay and mostly stolen stories from other cultures.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The burden is on you to show there are more sources for someone else than Jesus.
No it isn't you fucking asshole. YOU stated that there are 45 sources for this mythical jesus. When someone demands that you produce these sources you ellude to some book written by a religious political figure with absolutely NO credibility. The burden is YOURS to produce...YOU FUCKING MADE THE CLAIM! NOW BACK IT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!
I could easily state that 9000b.c.e. the was a man named bob and that there are 45 rocks that record his life and name. When you ask me to produce just one of those rocks being like you I would say..."You'll have to find the rocks yourself." That is what you are doing. You're a complete and utter moron!
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
We have a number of texts written about Abraham Lincoln also written with 150 years of his death.
The purpose of these texts is so that you can't claim Lincoln or Jesus didn't exist. Now that you know Jesus existed, you need to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. If you can't then know Jesus is God since only God can resurrect Himself.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
We have a number of texts written about Abraham Lincoln also written with 150 years of his death.
The purpose of these texts is so that you can't claim Lincoln or Jesus didn't exist. Now that you know Jesus existed, you need to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. If you can't then know Jesus is God since only God can resurrect Himself.
(emphasis mine)I have a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn flying around my head at all times. Since you
can't disprove that I do not have a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn flying around my head, then, by your inane excuse of broken logic, know that the flying pink invisible mini-unicorn exists.
Do you have any idea who stupid you sound? This is how your logic put into example can be shown to work.
Only difference between a concept of a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn and your concept of god is that you value your concept of god more. Both have no evidence for their proposed existence.
Quote from: "Sal1981"I have a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn flying around my head at all times. Since you can't disprove that I do not have a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn flying around my head, then, by your inane excuse of broken logic, know that the flying pink invisible mini-unicorn exists.
Do you have any idea who stupid you sound? This is how your logic put into example can be shown to work.
Only difference between a concept of a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn and your concept of god is that you value your concept of god more. Both have no evidence for their proposed existence.
We both believe in a creator of the universe, except you call yours a an invisible unicorn, but only one of us is correct.
I believe I am right and you are wrong, because a gracious and loving God makes Himself accessible throughout the globe where very few even know about your pink unicorn because there is no documentation on it like we have for Jesus the most documented person in antiquity. Since you nor I are able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles, realize Jesus is God for only God can resurrect Himself.
I like how God deals with the sin problem too, for no amount of works on our part can redeem us back to God who is infinitely greater than us.
Lol, the point of the manuscript was to prove to you that not all accounts of somebody's life, when written down later, are true. We have no way of knowing whether a man named Yeshua walked around the middle east 2000 years ago. There was probably at least one man of that name.
But if we assume there was somebody whom the stories are based off of, why the fuck would we believe he did a bunch of shit we know is impossible?
1. We know that stories exist that are about real people, doing made up things.
2. We know that some things are absolutely impossible for humans to do. We know people write stories about impossible things and people doing them.
3. We know that the stories of Jesus were written by humans, which we also know write made up stories about both real and fake people doing things that are completely fucking impossible.
If we know people write stories about fake shit, and we know the shit in question is fake, then it doesn't matter if the person is real or not.
It's im-fucking-possible. Lol you're so dense dude
Quote from: "Krisyork2008"We have no way of knowing whether a man named Yeshua walked around the middle east 2000 years ago.
The problem with your approach is that Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity, better corroborated and multiply attested, with more sources written about Him within 150 years of His death than any 10 figures combined.
If Jesus didn't exist nobody did. Virtually no scholars or historians take your position. Therefore, at some point the burden is on you, and that point is now!
Quotebecause a gracious and loving God makes Himself accessible throughout the globe
Yeah, I bet all the people who didn't live in the middle east 2000 years ago were really happy about that. Oh wait no, they had no idea because the myth hadn't left the area yet. It took the minions 1500 years to really get around, and "spread the word". Which is a synonym for "do horrible things" according to most of the people subjected to it back then.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Sal1981"I have a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn flying around my head at all times. Since you can't disprove that I do not have a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn flying around my head, then, by your inane excuse of broken logic, know that the flying pink invisible mini-unicorn exists.
Do you have any idea who stupid you sound? This is how your logic put into example can be shown to work.
Only difference between a concept of a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn and your concept of god is that you value your concept of god more. Both have no evidence for their proposed existence.
We both believe in a creator of the universe, except you call yours a an invisible unicorn, but only one of us is correct.
It is statements like these that makes people think you're an uneducated simpleton. Sal
doesn't believe in the unicorn. If you don't pick up on that rather obvious subtext, then your reasoning is of little value.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I believe I am right and you are wrong, because a gracious and loving God makes Himself accessible throughout the globe where very few even know about your pink unicorn because there is no documentation on it like we have for Jesus the most documented person in antiquity.
Non-primary sources are not documentation.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Since you nor I are able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles, realize Jesus is God for only God can resurrect Himself.
There
is a perfectly naturalistic explanation of the seemingly eyewitness testimony of the Apostles — they
aren't eyewitness testimony but later, embellished retellings. The earliest writings of the bible date back to no further than 60 C.E. No, the gospels are not amongst them.
Your refusal to accept this alternate explanation does not obviate it.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I like how God deals with the sin problem too, for no amount of works on our part can redeem us back to God who is infinitely greater than us.
Since 'sin' just means disobedience against god, atheists have a quite cromulent way of dealing with 'sin' too: it's just a word that religious label activities that go against their holy book and traditions.
Lol okay my bad, can you point me to that link with all the documents from within 150 years of jesus' life that mentioned him? And no, the bible doesn't count ;)
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"There is a perfectly naturalistic explanation of the seemingly eyewitness testimony of the Apostles — they aren't eyewitness testimony but later, embellished retellings. The earliest writings of the bible date back to no further than 60 C.E. No, the gospels are not amongst them.
Embellishment doesn't work as was stated already because:
1. The original disciples claimed resurrection from the beginning.
2. Paul claimed to have seen Jesus.
3. James claimed to have seen Jesus.
4. Critics need evidence for their assertions.
There is no reason to date the texts any later than a few days after their events. Moreover, if any of the texts were dated as late as 60 AD that is still sooner than for any other person in antiquity.
Some say the earliest text of the entire NT is Paul's Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 in which he stated he spent 15 days with Peter, James and John who recounted their eyewitness testimony with Paul as Paul relayed his own eyewitness testimony to them, and they had the same gospel message. Paul said they added nothing unto him.
The posts to this thread about those of faith having a binary mind is very much spot on.
When you have a world view that is faith based on a personal God that path is never paved by the process of critical thinking (at least in regards to that specific belief).
Lack of critical thinking then removes all the gray area of questions and leaves you with the binary yes/no..............absolute truth claims of faith based dogma loves such lack of critical thinking.
The scientific method resulting in provisional truth......an evidentially established truth that can be revised with future evidence.......... is a nightmare to those claiming absolute truth.
The personal God faith based world view can be comforting for many as it is lazy for others who just don't want to invest the time and process to research their position critically. In many cases they hear "experts" who have a vested interest in such faith and assume they have done the research and everything is inline with their faith so they need research no further.
Over time this faith based world view becomes the very self identity of who they are which makes any criticism of that view an attack on that self identity. That is why many of faith are so offended and reactive to someone who has come to an opposing view based off critical thinking.
Until a person of faith understands the application of critical thinking with the claims of a world view it would be impossible for them to understand how an atheist or agnostic reacts to questions like "why do you hate God"
The only response I give them is..................."When you found out as a child that Santa Claus was not real did you hate Santa then?............Or were you more disappointed that you were lead to believe of such an imaginary person for so long? At that point of you hated someone or something who do you think it would be?"
When I realize the Bible wasn't what I grew up in the church to believe it was.......I wasn't mad at any God, Christ or any other character in its pages at all.......
.....but I was very upset by the clergy and other Christian apologists/evangelicals who knew about the truth of biblical scholarship with manuscripts sourcing and canonical structure but never shared that with me.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Sal1981"I have a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn flying around my head at all times. Since you can't disprove that I do not have a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn flying around my head, then, by your inane excuse of broken logic, know that the flying pink invisible mini-unicorn exists.
Do you have any idea who stupid you sound? This is how your logic put into example can be shown to work.
Only difference between a concept of a flying pink invisible mini-unicorn and your concept of god is that you value your concept of god more. Both have no evidence for their proposed existence.
We both believe in a creator of the universe, except you call yours a an invisible unicorn, but only one of us is correct.
Besides from getting my point completely loop-sided, why do you think we have to choose between two propositions? This is called a False Dichotomy, btw. Has it never occurred to you that both propositions can be (and are) wrong?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I believe I am right and you are wrong, because a gracious and loving God makes Himself accessible throughout the globe where very few even know about your pink unicorn because there is no documentation on it like we have for Jesus the most documented person in antiquity. Since you nor I are able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles, realize Jesus is God for only God can resurrect Himself.
To an atheist this is like saying that Superman exists, because there's more "documentation" for Superman than there is for Batman.
(//http://puu.sh/5Yy6V.jpg)
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I like how God deals with the sin problem too, for no amount of works on our part can redeem us back to God who is infinitely greater than us.
A "problem" that originates from the same source it's supposed to solve. This is akin to a quack breaking your leg and then demanding money for mending your broken leg.
...so how bout them documents, hot shot?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"There is a perfectly naturalistic explanation of the seemingly eyewitness testimony of the Apostles — they aren't eyewitness testimony but later, embellished retellings. The earliest writings of the bible date back to no further than 60 C.E. No, the gospels are not amongst them.
Embellishment doesn't work as was stated already because:
1. The original disciples claimed resurrection from the beginning.
We have no writings from the original disciples
at all. Their claims cannot be traced back to the time of Jesus, or even to real people after all. It's easy to line up people's testimonies when you can redact them after the fact.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"2. Paul claimed to have seen Jesus.
Correction: someone writing about Paul claims that Paul claims to have seen Jesus. It's hearsay.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"3. James claimed to have seen Jesus.
Ibid.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"4. Critics need evidence for their assertions.
Not before you provide evidence for yours.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"There is no reason to date the texts any later than a few days after their events.
Positive evidence is required, homes. Present evidence to definitively date the text to "any later than a few days after their events."
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Moreover, if any of the texts were dated as late as 60 AD that is still sooner than for any other person in antiquity.
Bullshit. Julius Ceaser died before Jesus was supposedly born, and we have his writings. Not just secondary accounts, but primary accounts and the dude's
own writings.Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Some say the earliest text of the entire NT is Paul's Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 in which he stated he spent 15 days with Peter, James and John who recounted their eyewitness testimony with Paul as Paul relayed his own eyewitness testimony to them, and they had the same gospel message. Paul said they added nothing unto him.
The schollarly consensus puts the earliest NT text as I Thesilonians at the afforementioned 60 C.E. date or later.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"If God is not fictional then why do you hate God?
Since gods
are fictional, why do you worship?
I'm guessing it's low self-esteem imposed by a conformist system that you're terrified to challenge.
"Mutton today, mutton yesterday, and blimey! If it isn't mutton again tomorrow!"
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"For Jesus we have 45 ancient texts within 150 years of his death, 17 of which are non-Christian sources. He is documented more than any 10 figures in antiquity combined.
We have a number of texts written about Abraham Lincoln also written with 150 years of his death.
The purpose of these texts is so that you can't claim Lincoln or Jesus didn't exist. Now that you know Jesus existed, you need to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. If you can't then know Jesus is God since only God can resurrect Himself.
Okay, let me give you a better example: There were texts written about Harry Potter within 20 years of when he is supposed to have existed. Using your logic, we'd have to conclude that Harry Potter was a real person.
Also, your dependence upon eyewitness testimony is laughable. Study after study has proven that memory is so malleable as to make eyewitness testimony all but useless, especially after long periods of time. The drastic differences between the gospels are proof enough of this. The fact that they are similar in some areas is irrelevant; there were plenty of other, better documented "messiahs" in Jesus' time to draw the similarities from.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Embellishment doesn't work as was stated already because:
1. The original disciples claimed resurrection from the beginning.
2. Paul claimed to have seen Jesus.
3. James claimed to have seen Jesus.
4. Critics need evidence for their assertions.
However, you should hold those apostolic reports to the same evidentiary standard. You don't. That double-standard arises from the fact that your objectivity is compromised. Pretending to be objective when such isn't the case is occasionally entertaining, but rarely convincing.
And it is said that the almighty pisspot collected the urine of god and all shall drink from thy pot and be redeemed forever.
I know that this seems like a joke but in the 1st century there was a market for hairbrained religions. In the movie 'Life of Brian' Monty Python (all scholars from Cambridge, and Oxford) made fun of the fact that religion was on sale and that people went around saying anything that might make a dracma or what ever they were using at the time. Jesus, if there really was such a person, was just such a snake oil salesman and nothing more.
I like to think that ancient alien engineers created what we know of as the universe in a science lab as they themselves had progressed to a point of technology that they could create life. And guess what?
There's just as much evidence for that as there is for god.
Quote from: "Krisyork2008"I like to think that ancient alien engineers created what we know of as the universe in a science lab as they themselves had progressed to a point of technology that they could create life. And guess what?
There's just as much evidence for that as there is for god.
What you are describing is called "Gnosticism" in which we were created by aliens, but were not the ultimate Creator. Scientologists and Mormons believe something similar. This is nothing new under the sun. Gnosticism was found in 2nd and 3rd century "other books" rejected by the Church body of Christ and early church fathers as it does not agree with the resurrection proof of Jesus in which nothing exists that exists without Him having created it and only God can resurrect Himself.
Another problem with your idea is that aliens being in nature need a cause for their existence, and this goes on and on if infinite regress were true, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside of itself,
outside of time and space, being uncreated.Furthermore, it would be evil of God to allow the aliens to create living souls with free will, self-consciousness and God-consciousness as only God being infinitely great has that ultimate power and would never allow a lesser design, because that would not attain to His glory.
Thanks for taking the bait ;)
Not back to the point; where are the documents on the supposedly most documented person in history, who like totally existed and wasn't at all made up?
Quote from: "Krisyork2008"Not back to the point; where are the documents on the supposedly most documented person in history, who like totally existed and wasn't at all made up?
Do you believe anyone else existed in antiquity? If so, how many sources do you have for that person say within 150 years of his or her death? We should compare as we go along examining each text for both individuals.
There is a scholarly consensus of the 45 sources for Jesus, 17 of which are non-Christian which I would be happen to go through with you, but you have to provide data for your most written about person in antiquity so you can compare and put things in perspective as it seems that you are trying to claim Jesus never even exists.
One of Gary R. Habermas' graduate students is doing an analysis of popular internet sites who claim that Jesus didn't exist. Almost all of them are from individuals who have no relevant degree whatsoever in the field. While almost all scholars, skeptical ones too, concede that Jesus lived.
You're missing the point. If Jesus existed, as you've correctly pointed out is believed by most scholars, it would be very telling of his character based upon what was written. As you've failed to post any specifics I'll have to base this off of my limited knowledge.
Most scholars agree he existed, and they agree on two other things.
1. That he was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. That he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
Everything else is debated every day, and unknowable.
Do you remember the whole Abe Lincoln thing? Since we know Lincoln existed, if we believe everything said about him to be true then we'd surmise that he was a vampire hunter; among other things.
The bible cannot be used as historical evidence, especially not for the existence of somebody or for the things he did.
Quote from: "Krisyork2008"Most scholars agree he existed, and they agree on two other things.
1. That he was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. That he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
Everything else is debated every day, and unknowable.
You couldn't be more wrong.
12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
Lol no no no, get your bible bullshit outta here. That's a bunch of things believed by some people, those are not agreed upon. Regardless, this has turned into a debate filled with word salad and at the end of it nothing will change in our conversation.
Quote from: "Krisyork2008"Lol no no no, get your bible bullshit outta here. That's a bunch of things believed by some people, those are not agreed upon. Regardless, this has turned into a debate filled with word salad and at the end of it nothing will change in our conversation.
I know you don't want to believe this, but there is a 700 page document by Gary R. Habermas listing most scholars from nearly the past half century, and almost all of them believe these 12 items.
Then you come along and say not. What work did you do to counter this evidence?
The conclusion is concise: there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Krisyork2008"Most scholars agree he existed, and they agree on two other things.
1. That he was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. That he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
Everything else is debated every day, and unknowable.
You couldn't be more wrong.
12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
Bullshit! What a fucking lie
12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion. They can't find any record of this except for the bible. Roman records have nothing specific about a jesus crucifixion.
2. He was buried. Again no record
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. Where is that recorded? At best it is speculation not a fact.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested). I defy you to find the exact tomb or anything of FACT written about said tomb. The bible isn't fact.
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). This isn't proof. It's hearsay from the bible and ONLY from the bible. It isn't substaintiated in any way shape or form.
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers. Again only bible hearsay nothing more.
7. The resurrection was the central message. No verification and besides the resurection story existed in other cultures way before the bible or jesus.
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem. Prove it! They preached the resurection story in a lot of places before the mythical jesus was even thought of let alone born yet. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. Never happened. The day of the sabbeth was changed by Pope Gregory in 1582. http://www.remnantofgod.org/romeadmits.htm (http://www.remnantofgod.org/romeadmits.htm)
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic). Only bible hearsay not a verifiable fact.
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).[/quote] Only in the bible not a verifiable fact!
You have lied your ass off. What a complete an utter troll. I'm almost through slapping this fucking troll around. Isn't the ban hammer ready yet?!
Okay first of all, you're claiming scholars agree on those 12 things, and yet your evidence of that is a list compiled by a separate person. So until you show me the scholars of today agreeing upon those 12 things, I have no reason to believe you.
Second, even if that were true, your ending assumption is still wrong. There are countless ways that the witness testimony could be accounted for. Even if every scholar in the world agreed that dozens of people witnessed these events, it does not follow that the events happened. Which is why witness testimony is considered witness testimony, and not fact. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people claim to have seen UFOs in New Mexico and Nevada, but that doesn't mean it's true.
We know some things are not humanly possible, so when people claim to have witnessed them, the only logical response would be to accept that they're mistaken, or lying.
Quote from: "mykcob4"12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion. They can't find any record of this except for the bible. Roman records have nothing specific about a jesus crucifixion.
As to the 1st point there are 17 non-Christian sources of 45 sources for Jesus within 150 years of His death, and of those 17 sources, 12 speak of His death usually by crucifixion.
Be honest with the material. For example, Tacitus said Jesus died by crucifixion.
Don't just say anything that comes out of your mouth. If we were say 5 scholars around the table, the conversation would switch to discussing naturalistic explanations for the eyewitness accounts because we are way past these 12 historical facts since most scholars believe them.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "mykcob4"12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion. They can't find any record of this except for the bible. Roman records have nothing specific about a jesus crucifixion.
As to the 1st point there are 17 non-Christian sources of 45 sources for Jesus within 150 years of His death, and of those 17 sources, 12 speak of His death usually by crucifixion.
Be honest with the material.
What fucking material. I produced facts and sited the sources. You haven't produced anything. When asked for the sources, these 45 so-called sources, all you did was produce a religious political propagandist that is a known liar and propagandist. You didn't produce even one of the supposed 45 books/12 known scholars. You haven't produced shit, not one shred of evidence. I more than shot down your 12 truths with FACTS that everyone here can link to and read.
YOU are the one not being "honest with the material."
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "mykcob4"12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion. They can't find any record of this except for the bible. Roman records have nothing specific about a jesus crucifixion.
As to the 1st point there are 17 non-Christian sources of 45 sources for Jesus within 150 years of His death, and of those 17 sources, 12 speak of His death usually by crucifixion.
Be honest with the material.
What fucking material. I produced facts and sited the sources. You haven't produced anything. When asked for the sources, these 45 so-called sources, all you did was produce a religious political propagandist that is a known liar and propagandist. You didn't produce even one of the supposed 45 books/12 known scholars. You haven't produced shit, not one shred of evidence. I more than shot down your 12 truths with FACTS that everyone here can link to and read.
YOU are the one not being "honest with the material."
This is common material. The issue is not whether this information exists.
Gary R. Habermas, the leading scholar on the planet for the resurrection, goes through them all exhaustively in his 3 books:
1. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
2. The Historical Jesus
3. Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/ (http://www.garyhabermas.com/)
He's written something like 70 books and hundreds of articles.
He's also the one who has a 700 page document of thousands of scholars and they virtually universally agree in these 12 points as historical fact.
I looked up this book and list you submited as evidence. You forgot to mention several of the facts are not supported by many scholars, as they themselves claim, and several others use the bible as a history book.
I'm sorry, but using the bible to prove the bible is within the definition of circular logic.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "mykcob4"12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion. They can't find any record of this except for the bible. Roman records have nothing specific about a jesus crucifixion.
As to the 1st point there are 17 non-Christian sources of 45 sources for Jesus within 150 years of His death, and of those 17 sources, 12 speak of His death usually by crucifixion.
Be honest with the material. For example, Tacitus said Jesus died by crucifixion.
Don't just say anything that comes out of your mouth. If we were say 5 scholars around the table, the conversation would switch to discussing naturalistic explanations for the eyewitness accounts because we are way past these 12 historical facts since most scholars believe them.
Oh bullshit. What a bunch of crap! If IF! IF! IF! If grasshoppers had guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them! Fucking produce a varifiable fact. YOU'RE the one just spewing shit out of your mouth. I have sited sources that are credible and verifiable. And you accuse ME of just "saying anything that comes out of my mouth?" UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!!!!!!
Tacitus? Where can we find a record of Tacitus and what he said....other than the bible? Is his testimony(if any) hearsay or eyewitness? If eyewitness can it be verified?
If I had claimed as you did that "Tacitus" had said what you said he said, I would have provided who Tacitus was, when he lived....EVERYTHING about him. When did Tacitus live? Anyone can say what ever they want as you have done but they'd better back it up with facts which you HAVEN'T DONE you fucking moron!
Ban this moron, ban him now. Get rid of this pest.
Quote from: "Krisyork2008"I looked up this book and list you submited as evidence. You forgot to mention several of the facts are not supported by many scholars, as they themselves claim, and several others use the bible as a history book.
I'm sorry, but using the bible to prove the bible is within the definition of circular logic.
People will always disagree on anything so you will never get 100% on anything virtually, but over 95% of scholars believe these 12 facts. They use the Bible as a historical text to glean certain facts from it as well as non-Christian sources that draw them to agree on these 12 facts.
There is nothing circular about the fact the Bible provides the proof of its claims.
That would be weird if you denied a piece of paper that gave a proof of 1+1 and you rejected it because you said the piece of paper can't be used to prove the piece of pater is true about what is being written on it.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"This is common material. The issue is not whether this information exists.
Gary R. Habermas, the leading scholar on the planet for the resurrection, goes through them all exhaustively in his 3 books:
1. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
2. The Historical Jesus
3. Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/ (http://www.garyhabermas.com/)
He's written something like 70 books and hundreds of articles.
He's also the one who has a 700 page document of thousands of scholars and they virtually universally agree in these 12 points as historical fact.
Oh please an evangelist political activist? Really? I can produce more than 100 sources that pan his works as pure political fiction and propaganda. Give me a break GEEESH!
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"This is common material. The issue is not whether this information exists.
Gary R. Habermas, the leading scholar on the planet for the resurrection, goes through them all exhaustively in his 3 books:
1. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
2. The Historical Jesus
3. Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/ (http://www.garyhabermas.com/)
He's written something like 70 books and hundreds of articles.
He's also the one who has a 700 page document of thousands of scholars and they virtually universally agree in these 12 points as historical fact.
Oh please an evangelist political activist? Really? I can produce more than 100 sources that pan his works as pure political fiction and propaganda. Give me a break GEEESH!
Since most scholars agree, why disagree with their finding by relying on aberrant claims on the fringe who tend not to care about a little thing called evidence?
How about using CREDIBLE sources Gracie? Like Harvard divinty or Oxford theological or the British Academy of Science and Archeology!
Don't hand me a book by some Duck Dynasty deciple and ask me to believe it!
You're a fucking retard.
Wrong twice. Let's try again.
One of the claims specifically says 75 percent of scholars agree on it, which although high, is completely different than what you said. Soo.... Your comments can be disregarded. You would be disqualified from debate and considered a liar, and a fool.
Sure, you could use a piece of paper to write on to prove that 1+1=2. That just consists of writing a simple proof. But writing 1+1 does not prove that 1+1=2. Math is something that is inherintly true, no matter where it's written.
If I wrote a book claiming that I'm the son of Barack Obama, and I can not write lies, would that mean I'm the son of Barack Obama?
Quote from: "mykcob4"How about using CREDIBLE sources Gracie? Like Harvard divinty or Oxford theological or the British Academy of Science and Archeology!
Don't hand me a book by some Duck Dynasty deciple and ask me to believe it!
You're a fucking retard.
You go to any of these scholars on the resurrection and they would almost all agree in these 12 facts about the historical Jesus as Gary R. Habermas has compiled thousands of names and their take on each of these 12 points.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "mykcob4"How about using CREDIBLE sources Gracie? Like Harvard divinty or Oxford theological or the British Academy of Science and Archeology!
Don't hand me a book by some Duck Dynasty deciple and ask me to believe it!
You're a fucking retard.
You go to any of these scholars on the resurrection and they would almost all agree in these 12 facts about the historical Jesus as Gary R. Habermas has compiled thousands of names and their take on each of these 12 points.
No no no no no.
1) I don't trust someone that is an evangelical propagandist political activist.
2) Noone and I mean noone has proved that any resurection has occured, not one single person has risen from the dead, nobody. There isn't any record or fact that proves otherwise. Only folklore and hearsay no proof and no facts.
3) The resurection story has been around centuries before jews, christ, or any western culture religion claimed that a jesus lived. It's one of the oldest tricks/lies in human history.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "mykcob4"How about using CREDIBLE sources Gracie? Like Harvard divinty or Oxford theological or the British Academy of Science and Archeology!
Don't hand me a book by some Duck Dynasty deciple and ask me to believe it!
You're a fucking retard.
You go to any of these scholars on the resurrection and they would almost all agree in these 12 facts about the historical Jesus as Gary R. Habermas has compiled thousands of names and their take on each of these 12 points.
No no no no no.
1) I don't trust someone that is an evangelical propagandist political activist.
2) Noone and I mean noone has proved that any resurection has occured, not one single person has risen from the dead, nobody. There isn't any record or fact that proves otherwise. Only folklore and hearsay no proof and no facts.
3) The resurection story has been around centuries before jews, christ, or any western culture religion claimed that a jesus lived. It's one of the oldest tricks/lies in human history.
1) Then go through those sources yourself since its common knowledge.
2) The resurrection of Jesus is proven because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.
3) There is no resurrection accounts before Jesus that's why you can't find any.
Wow. Okay, at this point I'm starting to think you really might be trolling. You seemed genuine, but noone is that dense.
Explain to me how there can still be believing Branch Davidians (//http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178063471/two-decades-later-some-branch-davidians-still-believe) without David Koresh having been correct
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Explain to me how there can still be believing Branch Davidians (//http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178063471/two-decades-later-some-branch-davidians-still-believe) without David Koresh having been correct
They are delusional like you.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Krisyork2008"Most scholars agree he existed, and they agree on two other things.
1. That he was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. That he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
Everything else is debated every day, and unknowable.
You couldn't be more wrong.
12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
I know of exactly four "scholars" who agree on this list, and I debunked their credentials months ago (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=1809&p=949582#p949582).
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Krisyork2008"Most scholars agree he existed, and they agree on two other things.
1. That he was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. That he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
Everything else is debated every day, and unknowable.
You couldn't be more wrong.
12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
I know of exactly four "scholars" who agree on this list, and I debunked their credentials months ago (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=1809&p=949582#p949582).
That's the tiniest of samples.
We are talking nearly 5000 scholars whom almost all agree on these 12 points.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Krisyork2008"Most scholars agree he existed, and they agree on two other things.
1. That he was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. That he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
Everything else is debated every day, and unknowable.
You couldn't be more wrong.
12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
I know of exactly four "scholars" who agree on this list, and I debunked their credentials months ago (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=1809&p=949582#p949582).
Guess you better get the right credentials first.
We are talking nearly 5000 scholars whom almost all agree on these 12 points.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"We are talking nearly 5000 scholars
Out of millions more who disagree, now fuck off.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"We are talking nearly 5000 scholars
Out of millions more who disagree, now fuck off.
You're not a very nice person.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Poison Tree"Explain to me how there can still be believing Branch Davidians (//http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178063471/two-decades-later-some-branch-davidians-still-believe) without David Koresh having been correct
They are delusional like you.
The I put forward that the disciples were, also, nullifying
Quote5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem.
as being of any importance.
Further, the Branch Davidians leave legless the argument that people don't die for a lie (unless you are willing to accept Branch Davidians' teachings as the truth)
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Poison Tree"Explain to me how there can still be believing Branch Davidians (//http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178063471/two-decades-later-some-branch-davidians-still-believe) without David Koresh having been correct
They are delusional like you.
The I put forward that the disciples were, also, nullifying
Quote5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem.
as being of any importance.
Further, the Branch Davidians leave legless the argument that people don't die for a lie (unless you are willing to accept Branch Davidians' teachings as the truth)
How are they nullifying?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"We are talking nearly 5000 scholars
Out of millions more who disagree, now fuck off.
You're not a very nice person.
I'm a lot nicer when you don't act like an ignorant twat.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"We are talking nearly 5000 scholars
Out of millions more who disagree, now fuck off.
You're not a very nice person.
I'm a lot nicer when you don't act like an ignorant twat.
That's not nice to say that especially when you have nothing to back up your accusation.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"How are they nullify[s:36xbczhm]ing[/s:36xbczhm]ed?
By delusionallity
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"How are they nullify[s:1gw17bfx]ing[/s:1gw17bfx]ed?
By delusionallity
A delusion wouldn't explain their eyewitness testimony in various group settings since you have to explain them seeing the same thing over and over across 40 days.
A delusion is a false belief. But if that false belief is they believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead then you have to account for the factor of site, and group hallucinations are medically impossible.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"That's not nice to say that especially when you have nothing to back up your accusation.
Really? So taking your argument and fucking it in every conceivable hole a couple dozen times is "nothing."
You do realize you haven't actually answered a single counter-argument anyone has laid out to you, yes?
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"That's not nice to say that especially when you have nothing to back up your accusation.
Really? So taking your argument and fucking it in every conceivable hole a couple dozen times is "nothing."
You do realize you haven't actually answered a single counter-argument anyone has laid out to you, yes?
What was your counter argument to the fact we observe nothing in nature that comes from nothing?
Your profanity is unhealthy for you.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"How are they nullify[s:1bwevf0r]ing[/s:1bwevf0r]ed?
By delusionallity
A delusion wouldn't explain their eyewitness testimony in various group settings since you have to explain them seeing the same thing over and over across 40 days.
A delusion is a false belief. But if that false belief is they believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead then you have to account for the factor of site, and group hallucinations are medically impossible.
If group hallucinations are impossible then the Branch Dividians can't simply be dismissed as such
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"That's not nice to say that especially when you have nothing to back up your accusation.
Really? So taking your argument and fucking it in every conceivable hole a couple dozen times is "nothing."
You do realize you haven't actually answered a single counter-argument anyone has laid out to you, yes?
What was your counter argument to the fact we observe nothing in nature that comes from nothing?
Why don't you try
reading my earlier responses in the various threads, hmm? I'm not repeating myself just because you've decided to be a troll.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Really? So taking your argument and fucking it in every conceivable hole a couple dozen times is "nothing."
You do realize you haven't actually answered a single counter-argument anyone has laid out to you, yes?
What was your counter argument to the fact we observe nothing in nature that comes from nothing?
Why don't you try reading my earlier responses in the various threads, hmm? I'm not repeating myself just because you've decided to be a troll.
I find that I am repeating myself and you are not addressing what is said.
Have you found any evidence to counter the proof that nature needs a cause outside of itself?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Have you found any evidence to counter the proof that nature needs a cause outside of itself?
You've yet to provide evidence that it
needs an outside cause. Space-time was on hold until the Big Bang happened, at which point the singularity slowed to below the speed of light and exploded with force such that Hydrogen and Helium were able to form and coalesce into the first stars. None of this requires an outside force. As for where the singularity came from, they're working on it (//http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/collapsing-4-d-star-could-have-spawned-universe/).
I have told you this a number of times, and always you refuse to address it. You insist that the universe needs your god, when anyone with basic knowledge of astronomy can demonstrate that it really doesn't. If you have a refutation to this argument, then by all means present it; but if you simply rehash your initial argument (again), I'm going to spend the rest of the time you're on this forum laughing at you.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Have you found any evidence to counter the proof that nature needs a cause outside of itself?
First, find evidence that the universe, as an entire object, need a cause outside itself. Please note the difficulty of the task set before you. Causes require time, and so far the only time known to exist is the time of the universe itself. Thus, without the universe itself existing within a temporal structure, the question of "what caused nature?" is meaningless.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Have you found any evidence to counter the proof that nature needs a cause outside of itself?
First, find evidence that the universe, as an entire object, need a cause outside itself. Please note the difficulty of the task set before you. Causes require time, and so far the only time known to exist is the time of the universe itself. Thus, without the universe itself existing within a temporal structure, the question of "what caused nature?" is meaningless.
Since all events in nature have a cause from something, the first event does too. There is no need to treat the universe as a composition.
If you want to introduce a universe without time, that is outside of time, then simply compare your whatever to the uncaused cause outside of time being God and God trumps your whatever every time.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Have you found any evidence to counter the proof that nature needs a cause outside of itself?
You've yet to provide evidence that it needs an outside cause. Space-time was on hold until the Big Bang happened, at which point the singularity slowed to below the speed of light and exploded with force such that Hydrogen and Helium were able to form and coalesce into the first stars. None of this requires an outside force. As for where the singularity came from, they're working on it (//http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/collapsing-4-d-star-could-have-spawned-universe/).
I have told you this a number of times, and always you refuse to address it. You insist that the universe needs your god, when anyone with basic knowledge of astronomy can demonstrate that it really doesn't. If you have a refutation to this argument, then by all means present it; but if you simply rehash your initial argument (again), I'm going to spend the rest of the time you're on this forum laughing at you.
Compare your singularity outside of time and space to God and God trumps your singularity every time. That's how you know.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Have you found any evidence to counter the proof that nature needs a cause outside of itself?
You've yet to provide evidence that it needs an outside cause. Space-time was on hold until the Big Bang happened, at which point the singularity slowed to below the speed of light and exploded with force such that Hydrogen and Helium were able to form and coalesce into the first stars. None of this requires an outside force. As for where the singularity came from, they're working on it (//http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/collapsing-4-d-star-could-have-spawned-universe/).
I have told you this a number of times, and always you refuse to address it. You insist that the universe needs your god, when anyone with basic knowledge of astronomy can demonstrate that it really doesn't. If you have a refutation to this argument, then by all means present it; but if you simply rehash your initial argument (again), I'm going to spend the rest of the time you're on this forum laughing at you.
Compare your singularity outside of time and space to God and God trumps your singularity every time. That's how you know.
Say I compare they and the singularity trumps God; now what?
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"You've yet to provide evidence that it needs an outside cause. Space-time was on hold until the Big Bang happened, at which point the singularity slowed to below the speed of light and exploded with force such that Hydrogen and Helium were able to form and coalesce into the first stars. None of this requires an outside force. As for where the singularity came from, they're working on it (//http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/collapsing-4-d-star-could-have-spawned-universe/).
I have told you this a number of times, and always you refuse to address it. You insist that the universe needs your god, when anyone with basic knowledge of astronomy can demonstrate that it really doesn't. If you have a refutation to this argument, then by all means present it; but if you simply rehash your initial argument (again), I'm going to spend the rest of the time you're on this forum laughing at you.
Compare your singularity outside of time and space to God and God trumps your singularity every time. That's how you know.
Say I compare they and the singularity trumps God; now what?
You didn't show it.
But we can say the lesser can't create the greater, so a mind is needed to generate a mind, and the creator can't have morals below our own.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Have you found any evidence to counter the proof that nature needs a cause outside of itself?
First, find evidence that the universe, as an entire object, need a cause outside itself. Please note the difficulty of the task set before you. Causes require time, and so far the only time known to exist is the time of the universe itself. Thus, without the universe itself existing within a temporal structure, the question of "what caused nature?" is meaningless.
Since all events in nature have a cause from something, the first event does too. There is no need to treat the universe as a composition.
If you want to introduce a universe without time, that is outside of time, then simply compare your whatever to the uncaused cause outside of time being God and God trumps your whatever every time.
[youtube:fobaak2n]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA2GOIKzjI[/youtube:fobaak2n]
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"First, find evidence that the universe, as an entire object, need a cause outside itself. Please note the difficulty of the task set before you. Causes require time, and so far the only time known to exist is the time of the universe itself. Thus, without the universe itself existing within a temporal structure, the question of "what caused nature?" is meaningless.
Since all events in nature have a cause from something, the first event does too. There is no need to treat the universe as a composition.
If you want to introduce a universe without time, that is outside of time, then simply compare your whatever to the uncaused cause outside of time being God and God trumps your whatever every time.
[youtube:2tg3t0h5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA2GOIKzjI[/youtube:2tg3t0h5]
No comment?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"No comment?
[youtube:2tyankj0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWnEJQxieVQ[/youtube:2tyankj0]
I told you I would just laugh at you if you didn't address the argument and just re-stated your assertion.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"No comment?
[youtube:1gr1nw4n]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWnEJQxieVQ[/youtube:1gr1nw4n]
I told you I would just laugh at you if you didn't address the argument and just re-stated your assertion.
Still no comment?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Still no comment?
[youtube:q3cvijty]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm8xRvoQkc0[/youtube:q3cvijty]
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Still no comment?
[youtube:dxtj1nb8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm8xRvoQkc0[/youtube:dxtj1nb8]
How come no comment?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"How come no comment?
[youtube:1sbdbcot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY[/youtube:1sbdbcot]
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"but if you simply rehash your initial argument (again), I'm going to spend the rest of the time you're on this forum laughing at you.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"How come no comment?
[youtube:3rezeemh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY[/youtube:3rezeemh]Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"but if you simply rehash your initial argument (again), I'm going to spend the rest of the time you're on this forum laughing at you.
Why no comment?
Those videos are fucking awesome :D.
I don't see those videos. They get blocked on my end.
Some atheists would love God to exist,
but they don't believe in God, so they want to improve the world on their own.
I think they are better than the hypocrites who just await for a miracle, instead of being one themselves.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Some atheists would love God to exist,
but they don't believe in God, so they want to improve the world on their own.
I think they are better than the hypocrites who just await for a miracle, instead of being one themselves.
Wanting to improve the world on your own without the Holy Spirit of Truth indwelling your spirit is like wanting to build a brick house with only wood.
You should never force God's miracles. They are bestowed according to His good pleasure. Being a miracle and receiving a miracle are not mutually exclusive. Why limit God's miracles? Why not do and have both?
If an atheist really would love God to exist they would not deny the proof for God and who God is. Atheism is an expression of hostility towards God, independence as you are noting, and disobedience to His perfect will.
Seriously guys, he doesn't even understand his own argument, let alone anyone else's. He's just copy pasting something he heard somewhere over and over again.
Quote from: "Plu"Seriously guys, he doesn't even understand his own argument, let alone anyone else's. He's just copy pasting something he heard somewhere over and over again.
That's not true. This is my sincere question posed to you...
If the universe(s) always existed in an infinite regress of cause and effects, would you not already have happened having had an eternity to do so? Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
See? Just copy and pasting. He has no idea what he's talking about.
Quote from: "Plu"See? Just copy and pasting. He has no idea what he's talking about.
Show it is a copy and paste. Don't you feel bad how disingenuous you are? and how you avoid the proof?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Have you found any evidence to counter the proof that nature needs a cause outside of itself?
First, find evidence that the universe, as an entire object, need a cause outside itself. Please note the difficulty of the task set before you. Causes require time, and so far the only time known to exist is the time of the universe itself. Thus, without the universe itself existing within a temporal structure, the question of "what caused nature?" is meaningless.
Since all events in nature have a cause from something, the first event does too.
You don't even know that the arrow of time of the universe is aligned with the arrow of time of the exo-verse (yes, I just coined a term. Deal with it.), let alone know that the exo-verse has an arrow of time in the first place.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"There is no need to treat the universe as a composition.
The universe is a composition whether you like it or not. The fallacy of composition still attaches.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"If you want to introduce a universe without time, that is outside of time, then simply compare your whatever to the uncaused cause outside of time being God and God trumps your whatever every time.
Your god cannot make the logically impossible possible. Without an arrow of time in the exo-verse, there is no need for causation, or even a way to propose one.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You don't even know that the arrow of time of the universe is aligned with the arrow of time of the exo-verse
It's irrelevant how many universes you think there may be, they are all subject to the law of cause and effect so that if there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.
QuoteThe universe is a composition whether you like it or not. The fallacy of composition still attaches.
The fallacy of composition does not apply to the fact that all effects in nature have a cause so too does the first effect. And non-existence can't cause anything. A billion pound gorilla doesn't trample a city because it doesn't exist.
Oh wow, now we have 3 threads carrying the same bullshit from gracedwithlife. :Hangman:
Your response is b.s. deflection.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You don't even know that the arrow of time of the universe is aligned with the arrow of time of the exo-verse
It's irrelevant how many universes you think there may be, they are all subject to the law of cause and effect so that if there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.
No. Cause and effect is
meaningless without an arrow of time. Prove that the universe exists in an exo-verse with an arrow of time.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"QuoteThe universe is a composition whether you like it or not. The fallacy of composition still attaches.
The fallacy of composition does not apply to the fact that all effects in nature have a cause so too does the first effect. And non-existence can't cause anything. A billion pound gorilla doesn't trample a city because it doesn't exist.
The "law" of cause and effect has
only been observed on things within this universe. We have
absolutely no observations of cause and effect on universes as entire objects. Cause and effect may not apply to universes as entire objects, your insistence otherwise notwithstanding.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Cause and effect is meaningless without an arrow of time. Prove that the universe exists in an exo-verse with an arrow of time.
Don't assume that. Just go with the evidence. The evidence is that we observe cause and effect in nature. But there cannot be an infinite regress of cause and effects because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Cause and effect is meaningless without an arrow of time. Prove that the universe exists in an exo-verse with an arrow of time.
Don't assume that.
I'm not assuming
anything about the exo-verse — the whatever the universe exists in —
even that it has some sort of time. That's the problem. You NEED time for the law of cause and effect to hold, because the law of cause and effect apply to
efficient causes, which effect a state change, and state changes require a temporal structure to relate the state of not having a universe to the state of having one. Time is what allows you to say that an exo-verse without a universe is the same entity as an exo-verse with one. It's what allows you to say that the universe is created, instead of talking about two distinct exo-verses distinguished by the presence or absence of a universe.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Just go with the evidence. The evidence is that we observe cause and effect in nature. But there cannot be an infinite regress of cause and effects because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.
Again, echoes of MR. We observe cause and effect in nature, not ON nature.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You NEED time for the law of cause and effect to hold
You need time for the law of cause and effect in nature, not for the uncreated Creator who transcends time who brings time into existence.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You NEED time for the law of cause and effect to hold
You need time for the law of cause and effect in nature, not for the uncreated Creator who transcends time who brings time into existence.
That's Special Pleading.
You have to demonstrate that your creator is not bound by the same framework as its creation. Besides if your god exists without time, he has
no time to do anything and would be static, in which case your god
can't do anything.
Quote from: "Sal1981"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You NEED time for the law of cause and effect to hold
You need time for the law of cause and effect in nature, not for the uncreated Creator who transcends time who brings time into existence.
That's Special Pleading.
You have to demonstrate that your creator is not bound by the same framework as its creation. Besides if your god exists without time, he has no time to do anything and would be static, in which case your god can't do anything.
Nature proves the existence of the uncreated Creator and the uncreated Creator is what we call God.
Static is an improper term to apply to timeless and spacelessness since static implies time.
God's prerogative goes unhindered.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You NEED time for the law of cause and effect to hold
You need time for the law of cause and effect in nature,
The exo-verse is not nature as we know it. If you have no time in the exo-verse, then there is no cause and effect,
full stop.Quote from: "gracedwithlife"not for the uncreated Creator who transcends time who brings time into existence.
Special pleading, and contradiction. Time cannot be brought into existence from non-time because that would constitute a change of state, which is impossible in timelessness, so if time is created, it must have been created in a realm with time preexisting.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Nature proves the existence of the uncreated Creator and the uncreated Creator is what we call God.
So I'll play devil's advocate and for now allow your god of the gaps. How do you go from god of the gaps to personal God?
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The exo-verse is not nature as we know it. If you have no time in the exo-verse, then there is no cause and effect, full stop.
Just compare your timeless spaceless universe to God and God trumps your universe every time.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The exo-verse is not nature as we know it. If you have no time in the exo-verse, then there is no cause and effect, full stop.
Just compare your timeless spaceless universe to God and God trumps your universe every time.
My "timeless spaceless universe" is not any way a God. I don't even know that it exists — which is like God in a way, but not in a favorable one.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The exo-verse is not nature as we know it. If you have no time in the exo-verse, then there is no cause and effect, full stop.
Just compare your timeless spaceless universe to God and God trumps your universe every time.
God of the gaps. Classic.
Quote from: "aileron"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The exo-verse is not nature as we know it. If you have no time in the exo-verse, then there is no cause and effect, full stop.
Just compare your timeless spaceless universe to God and God trumps your universe every time.
God of the gaps. Classic.
There's no gaps.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The exo-verse is not nature as we know it. If you have no time in the exo-verse, then there is no cause and effect, full stop.
Just compare your timeless spaceless universe to God and God trumps your universe every time.
My "timeless spaceless universe" is not any way a God. I don't even know that it exists — which is like God in a way, but not in a favorable one.
God trumps your timeless universe since the lesser can't create the greater as a mind is needed to create a mind, and the morality and personableness and accessibility can't be below our own.
Quote from: "aileron"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"God of the gaps. Classic.
There's no gaps.
There are no gaps in scientific knowledge? I must have missed the press release.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Sal1981"That's Special Pleading.
You have to demonstrate that your creator is not bound by the same framework as its creation. Besides if your god exists without time, he has no time to do anything and would be static, in which case your god can't do anything.
Nature proves the existence of the uncreated Creator and the uncreated Creator is what we call God.
O rly? How does nature prove that?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Static is an improper term to apply to timeless and spacelessness since static implies time.
"Static" above is in your own incongruous use of "timelessness", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Your god is spaceless as well? So, let's recap, your god is without time, and without space, you know what else is without time and space? Nothing. And with a linguistic leap: Ergo, god is nothing at all.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"God's prerogative goes unhindered.
God only exists as a concept in your head.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"God trumps your timeless universe since the lesser can't create the greater
There's no evidence for the greater. That's what the entire argument's about, remember?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"as a mind is needed to create a mind,
There is no instance of a mind creating a mind. All known minds develop as part of mindless processes.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"and the morality and personableness and accessibility can't be below our own.
I don't even know what this means.
Quote from: "Sal1981"How does nature prove that?
Nature proves God exists since that which does not exist can't cause anything, and infinite regress of cause and effects is impossible, because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. As well, you should never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on never to reach this point. The problem as you can see with the man made concept of eternity. It is self-contradictory.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"There's no evidence for the greater. That's what the entire argument's about, remember?
There is evidence for the greater, that is what this is about remember? God is greater in that His will is perfect, He has a mind, is personal and accessible, whereas your timeless nature is not so God trumps your timeless nature every time.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"There's no evidence for the greater. That's what the entire argument's about, remember?
There is evidence for the greater, that is what this is about remember? God is greater in that His will is perfect, He has a mind, is personal and accessible, whereas your timeless nature is not so God trumps your timeless nature every time.
You've proposed that a bajillion times already, but you fail to do the work of supporting it. My intellectual honesty forbids me from accepting propositions that I do not think have sound underpinnings, no matter how many times its repeated. In order for it to be a proof, you have to shore it up to the reasonable satisfaction of your critics. You have not done this.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"There's no evidence for the greater. That's what the entire argument's about, remember?
There is evidence for the greater, that is what this is about remember? God is greater in that His will is perfect, He has a mind, is personal and accessible, whereas your timeless nature is not so God trumps your timeless nature every time.
You've proposed that a bajillion times already, but you fail to do the work of supporting it. My intellectual honesty forbids me from accepting propositions that I do not think have sound underpinnings, no matter how many times its repeated. In order for it to be a proof, you have to shore it up to the reasonable satisfaction of your critics. You have not done this.
An atheist wants to introduce an eternity of the past of cause and effects to replace God, but they will have to bite the bullet on that for they introduce eternity past, so that is an eternity of the past to come into being before now.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Wanting to improve the world on your own without the Holy Spirit of Truth indwelling your spirit is like wanting to build a brick house with only wood.
What about many people who want to cooporate to build a better world on their own, instead of awaiting God's miracles?
Have you seriously never considered that God might be within us (some of us)?
Why does God need to be outside us? If he/she were, would we not be slaves of him? Would we not have our free will taken away?
How can we have a free will if an outside God is deciding our fate?
QuoteIf an atheist really would love God to exist they would not deny the proof for God and who God is. Atheism is an expression of hostility towards God, independence as you are noting, and disobedience to His perfect will.
I'm no atheist. I am a theist, who mainly believes that the vast majority of people have Satan within them, including a lot of religious people.
Some few people, countable on one hand, (I am in between) are the only true people of God.
These are the people who are genuinly naive despite the hardship and the cruely of nature, and whom still believes in the goodness and the compassion,
and whom there is no doubt about their love to their neighbour.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Wanting to improve the world on your own without the Holy Spirit of Truth indwelling your spirit is like wanting to build a brick house with only wood.
What about many people who want to cooporate to build a better world on their own, instead of awaiting God's miracles?
Have you seriously never considered that God might be within us (some of us)?
Why does God need to be outside us? If he/she were, would we not be slaves of him? Would we not have our free will taken away?
How can we have a free will if an outside God is deciding our fate?
QuoteIf an atheist really would love God to exist they would not deny the proof for God and who God is. Atheism is an expression of hostility towards God, independence as you are noting, and disobedience to His perfect will.
I'm no atheist. I am a theist, who mainly believes that the vast majority of people have Satan within them, including a lot of religious people.
Some few people, countable on one hand, (I am in between) are the only true people of God.
These are the people who are genuinly naive despite the hardship and the cruely of nature, and whom still believes in the goodness and the compassion,
and whom there is no doubt about their love to their neighbour.
Why do you make God's leading and miracles mutually exclusive?
Most certainly the Holy Spirit is not in you because God would never indwell an unregenerated spirit. First God must give you eternal life by being born-again to enter into your spirit by His Holy Spirit.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"An atheist wants to introduce an eternity of the past of cause and effects to replace God,
Wrong. An atheist (at least a thinking one) says that God is unevidenced, regardless of whether the past is infinite.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Those videos are fucking awesome :D.
I don't think I've ever used so many in a single thread!
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Why do you make God's leading and miracles mutually exclusive?
I don't. God's leading (logical reasoning combined with practical experience) is a miracle in and of itself.
Especially when combined with ethics and good human behavior towards your fellow companions.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Most certainly the Holy Spirit is not in you because God would never indwell an unregenerated spirit. First God must give you eternal life by being born-again to enter into your spirit by His Holy Spirit.
I don't want eternal life.
Sometimes, I don't even want a life at all.
The latter happens to me when I think of how good my life is compared to those who are worse off than myself, because I fear losing it all at a later time.
Then I'd rather be dead.
I don't want yet another life in this forsaken universe.
Another argument against eternal life, no matter how good it is, is that goodness is relative:
If I happen to meet my grandparents in the paradisical afterlife, I would like to see my grandparents as I remember them, which includes them being old.
But I doubt they'd want to be remembered as being old, they would probably want to be seen as young as do most of us.
Then you might eventually claim that the paradisical afterlife is better than that, that we don't have bodies, but only personality, and that we live in eternal joy of 100 %.
I don't see how that is any different from being plain dead and not experiencing pain or anything else.
There is no religious argument towards the afterlife:
Either you are living or you are dead. There is no "afterlife". Afterlife is death, hence afterlife is an oxymoron.
Death is way better than life, because there is no pain. There is no good experiences either, but you won't notice the difference, because you have no consciousness.
Hence the rational argument towards death is that death is better than life. But you only get life once, so why not get the best out of it, then die off? That's the reasoning of my philosophy.
:popcorn: :popcorn:
gracedwithlife, I'm still waiting to hear how your fingers overcome the infinite regress of half distances between them and your keyboard
How do you know there is an after life?
Since God is proven and Jesus is proven to be God, His resurrection He says is for us all even those who are unsaved such as yourselves going to Hell.
All of the fun people will be in hell, besides after 10k years your mind will be so broken thy you'll be having the time of your life anyway
And if you go to heaven, after 10k years of peace you'll be so bored your mind will go to mush
Either way; insanity awaits you!
Why are you going to Hell?
Because you think its fun.
Of course it's fun, unless you're one of those super religious types
In that regard; it's okay if I'm running around murdering thousands in the name of "god" but it's wrong to have sex before marriage?
Be clear now, by all means. And don't say that religion begets peace because we all know how that works
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Why are you going to Hell?
Because you think its fun.
Why are you going to Hell?
Because you don't follow the morality of Christ or the Lord.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"How do you know there is an after life?
Since God is proven and Jesus is proven to be God, His resurrection He says is for us all even those who are unsaved such as yourselves going to Hell.
There is no god. There is no hell. There are only derranged people like you that have been culturally brainwashed, systematically indoctrinated. Fools that refuse to think for yourself or think critically.
God isn't proven. Jesus isn't proven either least of all by you. You shouldn't attempt to pretend to be the least bit scientific as you clearly are not.
Why is there a hell?
Hell is needed to eternally separate many from God's people.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"How do you know there is an after life?
Since God is proven and Jesus is proven to be God,
Since when?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"His resurrection He says is for us all even those who are unsaved such as yourselves going to Hell.
Empty posturing by proxy.
Since when has God been proven?
Ever since we could prove God's existence with the proof for God. Ever since the first two God-conscious living souls.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Why is there a hell?
Hell is needed to eternally separate many from God's people.
hell didn't even exist in "christianity" until a pope put it in. It is a direct theft of the stories from the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead'.
Ban gracie now!
They've modified and changed their little god stories so much so that their gods own people, the Isrealites or Jews, are now going to this hell he created for bad people. It is such a convoluted mess it makes for a good joke, the whole fucking tale!!
It'd be a stellar movie tho, if god was really from some alien race that created planets and life all the time, and he was just really really bad at it. His brother is awesome tho, and their dad totally loves him more. God would have a drinking problem, both explaining why he sucks at creating life and also leading in a downward spiral to more drinking.
Also he'd have a pit-bull named Zeus.
Gracedwithlife - why don't you argue in your cause? Why can't we have an intelligent discussion with you?
Your posts can be shortened to this conclusion:
"God exists, and that is the proof".
NOT!
I am a theist myself (or, I am not an atheist), but your posts is a scandal towards the theists.