And now it’s time for one of those posts that’s going to incite lots of responses. This should be fun. I understand that there are exceptions to the rules (that there are nonreligious people who oppose abortion, for example), but I really think I’m right here.South Dakota has outlawed abortion, in an attempt to overturn Roe V Wade at the national level. They may succeed. If they do, the pro-choice population will have no alternative but to try for a Constitutional Amendment.The problem I have with this whole thing is that most people have lost site of the real issue, the separation of church and state. The abortion issue is not about abortion, but rather about religious people forcing other people to obey the religious way of life. Gay rights, death with dignity, school prayer — all the same thing. Those who oppose all these issues are predominantly (exceptions noted) the same people, the same organizations, the same money. Most of the debates are not about the specific issues, but rather just cloaks around religious discussions.Their strength comes from our missing the point! When we fight these issues on an individual level, we are divided and therefore conquered! We should NOT be voting on abortion or gay rights — we should be voting ONLY on the issue of separation of church and state. When those in office agree that one religion should not rule the masses (like Iraq and Iran), these issues will go away by default.Our country is in imminent danger. We need to be united and vocal, and GOAL ORIENTED! Keep religion out of government and we keep freedom alive.
Reluctant
Fear of death for example. And the thought that the world is unfair and cruel. It’s evolving (according to you) so why can’t i (that according to you is a natural part of evolution) and many others just accept it?
Nice try, no cigar to quote you.
First of all, its not a personal opinion, i got it from the bible.
Secondly i said it might be so. Which it can, theoretically, right?
Goose:
Still evolving towards it.
Well, I derive most of my ‘personal’ opinions from:
A. Scientists,
B. the bible (& the lack of evidence).
Sure, just like I theorize Bigfoot might exist. Still gotta prove it.
Reluctant
You mean you believe we are still evolving towards it.
Well, we almost derive them from the same places then.
Are you claiming bigfoot exists?
Besides, i can’t prove anything. Much like you. If you had proof of your views you would use them all the time against christians.
But you don’t have absolute proof, such a thing doesn’t exist anyway. That is why you, like me, have faith.
If everything would need absolute proof we should all be happy knowing nothing.
Tell me, do you have absolute proof that supports your views?
Goose:
Read history.
Of course not. There’s a remote possibility, but until established, it’s a legend.
Actually, I can. I have.
The discussions have lost their novelty w/repetition.
You mean like Bigfoot?
Or god?
What extravagant…logic, if I can call it that.
What qualifies, then, as absolute proof?
& here is where the jaws of your rhetorical trap snap on empty air.
Burden is to the theist.
I don’t need to prove a thing.
Let’s say, for instance, you’re an entrepeneur, I’m an investor. You want my money. You need to convince me to lend/invest. I, on the other hand, don’t need to convince you why I shouldn’t put my money in your enterprise.
So, then, convince me why I need to invest, please.
Goose:
The hell you’re not.
These were the best evidences GooseHenry could give for the existence of God?????
And? Santa Claus said he had a reindeer named Rudolph: so do you believe in the existence of Rudolph?
You are simply accepting as unquestionable fact that Jesus actually lived, and that he actually said the things attributed to him. Before this first evidence of yours can even begin to count as actual evidence for the existence of God, you have to at least demonstrate that both of these premises (Jesus existed, and said what is attributed to him) are true.
Uhm, how exactly is ?fear of death? evidence of the existence of God?!?!?!?
Before answering, consider that chimpanzees and some other higher mammals, none of which believe in the existence of Jesus or God, show signs that they too fear death.
Why, it?s almost as if it?s all in your head!
Why don?t YOU answer why the world is an unfair and cruel place, what with there supposedly being an all-righteous, all-loving, all-powerful God up their watching over everything.
For example, why do so many babies die right after being born? Why does your God kill all those innocent babies? And do those babies go to hell? I mean, they haven?t accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior! And why does your God abort something like 50% of all human fetuses? And, then, why are you Christians all up in arms about humans killing fetuses when your own God kills so many more?
Ah yes, the old God of the gaps argument: if we can?t currently explain it, then it must be that God did it.
You know, back in the days of human ignorance, people actually believed that God had to create every ?kind? of life independently because they had no other explanation: God of the gaps. Then came Darwin, and a slew of other scientists since, that have convincingly shown that there is in fact a purely natural way for the great diversity of life forms to arise from only a single original one. Maybe you?ve heard of this scientific position ? evolution.
As science progresses, the gaps remaining for Christians like you to squeeze your God into continually get smaller and fewer.
Goose:
Why? BTW, why is the fear of death there in the first place?
Ok, can agree with that.
What, are you saying you can prove evolution?
No, evolution.
I don’t know. I don’t claim to have any either. You on the other hand seem to have (since evolution is the truth), what is your criteria for absolute proof?
What burden? I don’t have to prove anything either.
I am just saying that you probably take some things on faith, like me.
These were the best evidences GooseHenry could give for the existence of God?????
I thought Santa was a fictional characer made up for children. Are you saying eh isn’t?
No, i said i believe Jesus lived and said the things attributed to him.
we have the gospels and about 5-10 other sources mentioning Christ either directly or indirectly. That’s enough for me, i belive he existed. There no real reason to believe he dind’t, especially as long as there is nothing that contradicts the gospels.
My bible says that God has put down eternity in our hearts.
Do you also think they think a lot about death, what happens after and make up a lot of philosophies and such to fight the fear of death?
And how do you know they fear it and not just try to avoid it?
Maybe this is what the world is like with sin in it.
I don’t know. We don’t know all aspects. If we did we could start questioning God but our knowledge is very limited.
It could also be so that this is what it’s like living in a fallen world.
“Let the children come to me…”
I won’t question God or his motives.
I’ve never proposed any theory like this. More lie as long as you can’t explain the gaps you take it on faith.
Yeah i’ve heard of it. Still has to be observed though… and until that it remains a theory that you have to take with a bit of faith.
I believe that is called begging the question.
Nope. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of your first ?evidence? for the existence of God.
Seems I will have to explain in more depth for you.
If Jesus was just a man, like the rest of us, then his saying that there is a God is not evidence at all: I mean, men say there are flying saucers, Big Foot, Lock Ness Monster, and so on. For Jesus? saying to have any merit as evidence for the existence of God, you have to show several things.
1) That the alleged Jesus of Nazareth actually lived. I mean, I can tell you things that Hercules is said to have done, but that doesn?t mean Hercules actually existed.
2) That this Jesus actually said the things attributed to him. After all, Jesus left us no writings Himself, so at best we are taking other people?s word for what Jesus allegedly said.
3) What the allegedly historical person named Jesus of Nazareth allegedly said was truth. For example, I can show actual historical people who have said that the Holocaust never happened: that does not make it so.
But now, in (3), you are in a quagmire: if you have to show that Jesus? statements that there is a God is truth, in order to provide your first evidence for the existence of God, then this first evidence for the existence of God can?t be used as evidence for the existence of God, because you first have to prove that Jesus was right when He claimed that God existed!
So you can?t demonstrate either? And this is your FIRST evidence for the existence of God?!?!?!?
Your first evidence for the existence of God boils down to little more than another way of you saying that your believe in God. That?s not evidence.
?Matthew? and ?Luke? copied many of their stories from Mark (and both of them got other of their stories from a another source known as Quelle). Copying stories from a common source means the gospels are not independent testimonies, but simply multiple retellings of shared stories.
The first gospel (Mark) was not written until some 40 years after Jesus died: why? There were allegedly 12 people (at least) who walked right beside the God of the Universe Himself: they walked with Him for several years, and witnessed His many miracles over that time span, and were personally taught by God. And yet not one of them wrote down, or had written down for them, a single word about this for 40 years? Sorry, doesn?t make sense.
And where?s Mary?s gospel? She was a virgin and yet bore a son, which was praised by many others, some from afar, just after its birth. And angels spoke to her about her son. And she had to flee to Egypt to escape King Herod?s attempts to kill her son. Don?t you think she would have written down, or had written down for her, at least one word about all of this? Her absolute silence does not make sense.
Also, of course, the gospels contradict each other in numerous ways. ?John? tells us that Jesus was crucified on the day the Passover Feast was prepared, whereas the other gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified the day after that. One gospel (John, IIRC) tells us that the women who went to Jesus? tomb were told that Jesus had gone ahead of them to Galilee, and that that is where they will meet Him; yet Luke?s gospel tells us that the disciples remained in Jerusalem and that that is where Jesus met them. And so on, and so on.
As far as NON-CHRISTIAN sources that attest to the existence of Jesus, there are no reliable ones. IIRC, there are only 3 within the first 100 years after Jesus? death (any later than that can SURELY be considered mere secondhand retellings of stories one has been told).
1) Pliny the Younger merely mentions Jesus, and does so in a clearly secondhand manner. He is simply saying what others believe.
2) Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus twice. But the one that shows who Jesus ?Really was? is considered to be either a complete fabrication, or at least a Christian doctoring of Josephus? original statements to say things he never did. Since Christians were the ones who kept Josephus? works over the years (the Jews considering him to have been a traitor to Rome), and our knowing that the Christians doctored his sayings, Josephus? statements do not count as a non-Christian confirmations of Jesus: in fact, what they show is that Christians will forge documents to make them say want they want.
3) Sorry, I can?t remember the other non-Christian reference to Jesus off the top of my head. But I do recall that it too suffered at least one problem (maybe just its late date of writing).
Now, if you?d like to provide the other ones you claim exist, by all means, please do so.
Uhm, the gospels contradict themselves.
Have I mentioned yet how stupid I think this site is?
1) The manner of separating quotes off is different from – and more lengthy, and therefore more error prone than – every other site I have ever posted at.
2) If you make a mistake, you can’t edit your post.
3) You can’t even preview your post to check for errors being your actually post it.
Ridiculous. Anyway…
Nope. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of your first ?evidence? for the existence of God.
Seems I will have to explain in more depth for you.
If Jesus was just a man, like the rest of us, then his saying that there is a God is not evidence at all: I mean, men say there are flying saucers, Big Foot, Lock Ness Monster, and so on. For Jesus? saying to have any merit as evidence for the existence of God, you have to show several things.
1) That the alleged Jesus of Nazareth actually lived. I mean, I can tell you things that Hercules is said to have done, but that doesn?t mean Hercules actually existed.
2) That this Jesus actually said the things attributed to him. After all, Jesus left us no writings Himself, so at best we are taking other people?s word for what Jesus allegedly said.
3) What the allegedly historical person named Jesus of Nazareth allegedly said was truth. For example, I can show actual historical people who have said that the Holocaust never happened: that does not make it so.
But now, in (3), you are in a quagmire: if you have to show that Jesus? statements that there is a God is truth, in order to provide your first evidence for the existence of God, then this first evidence for the existence of God can?t be used as evidence for the existence of God, because you first have to prove that Jesus was right when He claimed that God existed!
So you can?t demonstrate either? And this is your FIRST evidence for the existence of God?!?!?!?
Your first evidence for the existence of God boils down to little more than another way of you saying that your believe in God. That?s not evidence.
?Matthew? and ?Luke? copied many of their stories from Mark (and both of them got other of their stories from a another source known as Quelle). Copying stories from a common source means the gospels are not independent testimonies, but simply multiple retellings of shared stories.
The first gospel (Mark) was not written until some 40 years after Jesus died: why? There were allegedly 12 people (at least) who walked right beside the God of the Universe Himself: they walked with Him for several years, and witnessed His many miracles over that time span, and were personally taught by God. And yet not one of them wrote down, or had written down for them, a single word about this for 40 years? Sorry, doesn?t make sense.
And where?s Mary?s gospel? She was a virgin and yet bore a son, which was praised by many others, some from afar, just after its birth. And angels spoke to her about her son. And she had to flee to Egypt to escape King Herod?s attempts to kill her son. Don?t you think she would have written down, or had written down for her, at least one word about all of this? Her absolute silence does not make sense.
Also, of course, the gospels contradict each other in numerous ways. ?John? tells us that Jesus was crucified on the day the Passover Feast was prepared, whereas the other gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified the day after that. One gospel (John, IIRC) tells us that the women who went to Jesus? tomb were told that Jesus had gone ahead of them to Galilee, and that that is where they will meet Him; yet Luke?s gospel tells us that the disciples remained in Jerusalem and that that is where Jesus met them. And so on, and so on.
As far as NON-CHRISTIAN sources that attest to the existence of Jesus, there are no reliable ones. IIRC, there are only 3 within the first 100 years after Jesus? death (any later than that can SURELY be considered mere secondhand retellings of stories one has been told).
1) Pliny the Younger merely mentions Jesus, and does so in a clearly secondhand manner. He is simply saying what others believe.
2) Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus twice. But the one that shows who Jesus ?Really was? is considered to be either a complete fabrication, or at least a Christian doctoring of Josephus? original statements to say things he never did. Since Christians were the ones who kept Josephus? works over the years (the Jews considering him to have been a traitor to Rome), and our knowing that the Christians doctored his sayings, Josephus? statements do not count as a non-Christian confirmations of Jesus: in fact, what they show is that Christians will forge documents to make them say want they want.
3) Sorry, I can?t remember the other non-Christian reference to Jesus off the top of my head. But I do recall that it too suffered at least one problem (maybe just its late date of writing).
Now, if you?d like to provide the other ones you claim exist, by all means, please do so.
Uhm, the gospels contradict themselves.
Well, since you have not shown that the Bible is trustworthy ? whereas I can show reasons to accept that it?s not (such as the many contradictions in the New Testament alone) ? your reliance on the Bible doesn?t cut it.
So God can?t do anything about the pain and suffering down here? Sin is stronger than God?
Remember, your God is supposed to be all-righteous and all-loving. How can someone who is all-righteous and all-loving allow pain and suffering on such massive scales, if He is able to effortlessly prevent it?
Gee, what a completely useless ?answer?.
So babies that have just been born have sinned and deserve to die?
Where does that say that the many children your God intentionally allows to die horrible deaths soon after they are born will not go to Hell?
And are you telling me that one does NOT have to believe that Jesus died for their sins in order to be saved?
Translation: ?I won?t think for myself?.
Evolution ? including the origin of new species ? has been observed.
Accepting the evolutionary origin of all extant life from a single common ancestor is not a matter of faith, but rather of accepting for good reasons (empirical evidences, supported theories, and valid logic) that such occurred. We have the fossil record that shows the increase in maximum complexity over geological time, we have the biochemical evidences that all life is related, we have the genetic evidences that organisms are related through common descent in a manner that forms nested hierarchies, we have the well tested theories that explain how these phenomena can occur naturally, and so on.
Faith is what religious people rely upon: it is based on the LACK of evidence.
You?re wrong. It?s called an undeniable fact.
Or do you still believe that diseases are caused by evil spirits, instead of by bacteria, viruses, and other parasites? Do you still think that lightning is God throwing ?sticks of fire? at us?
Goose:
This, then, encapsulates my repugnance for your faith.
That all must suffer, in accordance w/your deity’s bad design. Born of flesh, heir to pain, a spiritually defective creature by default.
It disgusts me to the core.
It is wrong, it is evil, it is inhumane to the Nth degree.
I’m supposing that all infants who have passed on are lashed by the tongues of hellfire? Or sent out into the darkness, in eternal separation, amid the ‘wailing & gnashing of teeth’, unable to give voice yet to this doctrine/dogma you preach?
& your answer is ‘why ask why’? You provide the standard sheep feed, & cannot understand why we won’t partake of it?
It cannot stand w/o help. Are you so obtuse, you cannot see that?
It is vile, it is. Sugar-coated crap. A bad explanation for all the suffering we are prone to.
Sell your candy elsewhere. I for 1 am not buying it.
I have no taste for tripe.
DNA
This started out as a discussion about evolution and if it can be considered a faith or not… now it turned into an attack on my faith.
No you didn’t. The gospels make claims, stories about Santa don’t.
Although the miracles and His resurrection do give som more wight to His words than somebydo who claims to have seem Big Foot.
1) That the alleged Jesus of Nazareth actually lived. I mean, I can tell you things that Hercules is said to have done, but that doesn?t mean Hercules actually existed.
Are you willing to die for your claim that Hercules existed…?
Anyway, we have the gospels. They are archeologically correct regarging people, places and so forth.
Then we have Flavius, Tacitus, Pliny, Thallus and The talmud mentioning Christ aither direclty or indirectly. We can still choose to disbelieve that he existed, but then i imagine we’ll have to scrap other things we take for a fact that have less historical back-up.
2) That this Jesus actually said the things attributed to him. After all, Jesus left us no writings Himself, so at best we are taking other people?s word for what Jesus allegedly said.
Considering that there are cirka 5000 greek manuscripts of the NT existing, and that there is an 99,5% accuracy between the earliest copy and the oldest, we can at least assume that they haven’t been distorted over time.
The gospels are historically accurate regarding people, events, circumstances etc. and claim to be eyewitness testimonies.
If it was all a fraud, i would expect some sort of writings claiming everything was a fraud or presenting conspiracy theories. But no. history is remarkably quiet. No body of the crime, so to speak.
So based on this, why shouldn’t it be reasonable Jesus said and did that which is written?
He backed up his sayings with miracles. Then he defeated death, and the disciples were willing to lose it all just to spread that piece of news.
Are the ones who deny the holocaust ready to die for their truth?
No, i said i believe Jesus lived and said the things attributed to him.
No, i find the evidence sufficient for believing it. Nobody, as far as i know, has ever come up with the slightest of conspiracy or cover up theory, so why not believe then?
Besides, why make it all up? There wasn’t any reward for that.
Well i stated my reasons for believing above.
This is a theory but let’s assume it is so. Then there is an even earlier eyewitness account available! Even more reliable probably.
THey might have spread the word orally or using simpler scrablling until someone decided to write it down “cleanly”.
Her absolute silence means that the above is an argument from silence.
That there are differences in the retellings isn’t that strange is there? If 4 people are witnesses to the same story there are bound to be differences. Main point is that the differences do not change the nature, personalite or divinity of Christ neither do they affect his teachings. The 4 gospels deal with the same Messiah and His message.
Well if one consider the fact that they claim to be 4 different eyewitness accounts there are bound to be differences. There are no contradictions as to the message and the doctrines.
Actually, if Jesus existed and did and said what he claimed to do, the bible is trustworthy since he said it was.
You know my stock answer to that one. Adam&Eve, garden of Eden ,free will sin etc. no point repeating for 1000 time, you’ve probably heard it before.
Yes and he will. It’s called the second coming, you kno what that means.
He’s both willing and able. Just wait a little while longer, he’ll set everything right.
He allows us to reap the fruit of what we have sown. Don’t worry, justice will be done still.
Ok. so….?
Sin affects the innocent also.
No how could they have? It’s not your problem. You, on the other hand, have had plenty of chances to.
Maybe because little children, like Adam and Eve before the fall, can’t tell good from evil and therefore cannot be judged.
And are you telling me that one does NOT have to believe that Jesus died for their sins in order to be saved?
Most definetily not.
Where can i read about macroevolution having occured?
I don’t agree with your presuppositions. Anyhow, we could also rely upon personal experiences of Jesus Christ for all you know.
I still call begging the question.
Goose,
Arguments from Martyrdom are logical fallacies. They do not support you position. your continued use of them is only showing your lack of argument skills.
If they were to, then you would have to admit that then tenets of islam are true because many suicide bombers and the 9/11 highjackers died for their beliefs.
LOL. You have to love a practitioner of circular logic.
“The bible says that Jesus says the bible is trustworthy”. Therefore both the bible and jesus are straight and true. hehehehe
GooseHenry said: “Actually, if Jesus existed and did and said what he claimed to do, the bible is trustworthy since he said it was.”
Circular logic if ever there was a clearer case.
This argument is the bedrock of your faith, isn’t it? The bible says it’s true therefore the bible is true. If the bible is wrong and the stories about Jesus are just stories, some truth some fabrication, then your faith is shot. No bible, no faith.
GooseHenry said: “Are you willing to die for your claim that Hercules existed…?”
This is a flawed argument. Probably intentionally disingenuous too. It says less about the existence of God and more about your own sanity!
Goose:
Probably.
Why do I need an explanation?
It just is.
By fabrication, I assume you mean your book of fables.
Evolution right now is the best explanation. Absolute? The only absolutes are the natural laws we’re bound by.
Since it has far more evidence than anything your side has to present.
Detached anecdotes, hearsay, nothing solid. Some indicators that the cult existed at the time, nothing more.
Nothing that’d stand up in a court of law.
One point I’d like to clarify if I’m able. Just because we as atheists will take on theists in debate and not put up with any of their crap here on this blog, doesn’t mean that we do not support their right to practice said crap in their own homes and churches. That’s the point of church/state separation. It’s to protect you theists out there as well as us atheists. A secular nation doesn’t mean an atheist nation. A secular nation means no prejudice.
If a particular sect is given favorite status by a society in its public places and institutions(as xianity is given here in america), then that sect will flourish to the detriment of other sects or non-sects. In the marketplace of ideas, one idea has been artificially boosted. If we enforce church/state separation, then xianity will have to compete on its own merits as an idea comparable to other ideas. I suspect that xians fear this scenario because they will not flourish based on the merits of their ideas. It may be an irrational fear, maybe not. The Tim’s and the Phreedm’s and the GooseHenry’s are proving to the world that their ideas stink. The spander’s of the world, in my opinion, give hope to a future with xianity in it, albeit by adapting xianity and releasing the grip on dogma. It seems to me we can do this the hard way or we can do this the easy way. The hard way is a clash of cultures such as we see in the middle east. The easy way is to change and adapt, keeping an open mind, learning, and at all times, using our intelligence and our compassion.
HeatheNZ
Reluctant
Sin affects the innocent also.
I am sorry you feel that way. However, it isn’t about how we feel about it, it’s about if it’s true or not.
My original intent was to pose question about evolution (abortion issues originally) and now we are back at the point of stating how sick my faith makes you.
It is you who asks the questions. If the questions make you sick, then i am sorry, but this is what i believe to be true.
Come on. The message of the gospel? Evil? This is just my “personal opinion” but calling the message of the gospel “evil” sounds kind of absurd to me.
I’m supposing that all infants who have passed on are lashed by the tongues of hellfire? Or sent out into the darkness, in eternal separation, amid the ‘wailing & gnashing of teeth’, unable to give voice yet to this doctrine/dogma you preach?
Infants in hell?!? Rest assured, everybody gets a fair chance of making their mind up about God. I don’t have all the details but i have a promise that everybody will be judged according to their knowledge of God. Infants have none of that.
Again, i am not trying to convince you into anything. I am just discussing the validity of the gospels with you.
what i see is the following: we have a case. We have evidence that points in one direction (concerning Christ, his existence and deeds.)
We have nothing pointing in the other direction. No conspiracy theories, no explanations of how the crucifiction was “staged”, no theory of where the body was hid etc. etc.
Now, to some extent there are contradictions in the gospels. You can use these to try to undermine the gospels’ reliability but that is about it. Fact remains, all evidence point in one direction.
Ok. I am sorry to hear that.
Jim
Maybe you are right. I’ll rephrase:
- Do you claim Hercules existed?
Jim
Well. I said if we accept the evidence that Jesus existed and that the NT portray Him and His deeds accurately we can also accept the OT. Since it contains prophecy about Him and He referred to it Himself.
NT+OT = the bible.
Goose:
Not true.
That was example only.
Reliability = nil.
Then why are you repeating your sad, sorry logic ad infinitum?
None so blind as those who will not see. Hehehehe.
Yeah, from a source that has a habit of breaking promises.
Incorrect.
You harp on this point constantly. You’ve got no evidence any of this happened. 4 disparate accounts is all, 3rd person, no historical backup, yadayadayadayada. Matthew & Luke cribbed off of Mark.
Face facts. You’ve got little outside of a VERY poor set of stories. All the while, fingers stuck in ears, LALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU is a pat response.
All of your responses are pat. Been done a million times before, by others more eloquent than you. Still miss the target. No kewpie doll.
All the while, you keep casting your line back in the waters, hoping to hook a soul.
You need better bait.
Reluctant
How so? They are correct concerning priests&people in power, places etc.
Tell me, considering the evidence however flawed you might find it, do you think it is more probable that Jesus existed or didn’t exist?
If you think it’s more probable that he didn’t exist, what is your theories on the biblical and on-biblical account of Jesus?
that swings both ways.
Lets see. We have both biblical and non-biblical accounts of Jesus. No matter what one thinks of the evidence, it still points in one direction only. No corpus delicti as you put it yourself.
But tell me, how do you think Christianity got started?
No i hear you. I just wonder what kind of evidence you have that points in the other direction. You must have something upon which you can build an alternative explanation of everything since you seem to be so sure that it’s all a fabrication.
I am not here to fish for souls.
Back to my original question: is evolution according to you an absolute truth or do you believe it is true?
HeatheZN
Ok, just to set the record straight. I never claimed people were raised from any church in Finland, i said healings occured.
They claim to be eyewitness accounts. And we can’t know what they saw for sure, but why not the resurrection?
True. But when people tend to abandon these thing when they encounter risk of loss of friends, family, etc.
So, can we conclude that it might be so that the resurrection occured? Even if you don’t believe it.
Sorry, assumption from my side. I’ve heard about suicide bombers being promises these things.
yeah it might. Are you basing that on something or is it just an assumption? Which acts are you talking about btw? Are you implying that they did it so that the rumour of somebody elses resurrection would outlive them? Isn’t that stretching it a little?
Your argumentation is even more based on biases than mine. You have no evidence whatsoever that supports your position, even so you claim that the resurrection didn’t happen.
At least you must admit that there is a possibility it happened.
Goose,
It shows that you are not paying attention. Resurrection myths have been common throughout many cultures and religions. Yours is simply one of many. Another myth. These myths are believed by the desparate and the gullible as evidenced by your own posting claiming a church in Finland regularly raising folks from the dead. Fairy tales. Myths. Lies.
Absolutely correct. This is the crux of a logical fallacy. It has no bearing on the truth value of the conclusion. At last you admit that the alledged marytrdom of the disciples has no bearing on the veracity of the religion.
Or perhaps you still do not understand why this is a logical falacy
***SIGH***. First we have no idea what they actually saw, just reports of reports of reports of what they said they saw. Second, people see things that are not there all the time. Third, people lie. Four, Sometimes people lie just to fuck with your head. 5.People exaggerate stories throughout generations. 6. etc, etc, etc
See above.
1. How do you know what the hi-jackers thought? This is exactly how “truths” get started. 2 If the record is accurate, then one assignment of motivation might be the desire to make their acts outlive their life. ie. posthumus fame. Seems to have worked pretty well.
It’s an arbitrary difference based on your biases, and moreover it’s irrelevant. Both are arguments from martyrdom and therfore have no impact on the truth value of your conclusion. I say again: Arguments from Martyrdom are logical fallacies. They do not support you position. your continued use of them is only showing your lack of argument skills.
Reluctant
Ok, so he probably didn’t exist. But we have detailed gospels. Non-biblical accounts. All written documents that deal with Jesus points towards his existence. None denies it.
Yet, you have come to the conclusion that he probably didn’t exist. Without anything that supports your position positively.
Considering the amount of evidence you’ve gathered in the creationist – evolutionist debate i’d say you are being somewhat inconsequential and illogical on this point.
Because i want to hear how an atheist motivates his choice.
“It just is” is a weak argument. Being a hardcore atheist (correct me if i am wrong, assumption from my side) one would think you would have at least some counterevidence to the claims of Jesus. Strong evidence preferably to support your position.
Up to ths point i don’t think your reasons for rejecting the existence/deeds of Christ are very well founded.
That is what we are discussing. So far i haven’t heard any good reason for calling them fables.
Ok, i’ll settle for that.
Goose
This falls back to the party responsible for the burden of proof. As the party making the extraordinary claim, it falls on you My ‘argument’ is simply that you have not adequately met your burden.
As I also freely admit that there is a possibility that there are miniature pink unicorns flying around my house. However neither claim is adequately supported by presented evidence. All you seem to have is: He said, she said, he wrote what he said, etc, etc, etc.
Goose:
I meant he probably did.
Stop moving the goalposts. Which subject are we on now?
I do. You won’t listen to any of it anyways. I’m not going to become a parrot at your request.
Have you even looked at my website? Dismissed no doubt, as ‘opinion’.
Then pick a topic and STAY ON TOPIC, please.
Go visit my website. I get tired of typing the SAME THING over and over and over again.
No it isn’t. It just isn’t very intellectually satisfying, is all.
Kinda like repeating myself constantly.
We’ve walked in circles so often, I’m getting a bit dizzy.
Goose:
Read these:
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/03/demolishing-nt-in-500-words-or-less.htmlhttp://www.reluctantatheist.com/authenjesus.htm
http://www.reluctantatheist.com/VB.htm
http://www.reluctantatheist.com/the%20copycat%20savior%20thesis.htm
Ponder, get back to me in a day or so.