Are you offended by Christianity?

1: if you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then you'd be a christian.

2: strawman. I said that theGospels are historically reliable. prove that they are unreliable

3: you woulden't be lying, but there are much more plausible explanations for this, such as a cloud

4: who are these eye-witnesses that saw Buddha ascend into heaven?

5: do you believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?

fanofazrienoch

1. Obviously. Historians who believe that are expressing their personal Christian beliefs.

2. I said the ancient Greek text regarding Troy are reliable. Prove that Apollo didn't massacre Greeks out of anger.

3. Wouldn't that be the same for the gospels?

4. Contemporaries of Buddhists and historians. Buddha was an Indian prince who had many followers and many who chronicled his life...basically the same as the gospels & Jesus.

5. Yes, yes. Divinity and resurrection is a different matter. Do you believe Buddha existed and achieved enlightenment & nirvanna?

were these historians eye-witnesses?fanofazrienoch

There are eye wittness accounts to Mohammad's ascension to heaven at the Dome of the Rock.

Again - If I were to see a cloud and think it's an alien spacecraft - I can easily write in my biography I saw alien spacecrafts. I wouldn't be lying and it would be an eye witness account.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="blacktorn"]

I don't understand what atheists get out of calling themselves atheists and try to discourage religion,what is there to gain in that? other than to reassure themselves that there is no god and that religion is mumbo jumbo

sSubZerOo

I have nothing against religious people.. What I do have against is the idea that their beliefs can some how be argued as being factual under scinetific evidence, logic etc etc.. I would understand if all they said thats what I believe.. Or people who some how think its ok to twist scientifical evidence and studies to some how give them more "evidence".. For instance the belief in god, can't argue with it. Not only is it pointless to argue but there is no reason to argue about it.. Its when people start stating that god exists as fact.

Science is not involved in either the belief or disbelief. It's neutral.

It does when it takes into the accounts of the dvinity of Jesus, as well as other thigns.. And just becaus eyou interpret the Bible one way.. Doesn't mean its the correct way.. Afterall there are many people in the United States that blieve that Noah's Ark really happened.

That's wrong. Science doesn't answer that either way. :|

Now I'm off to work. Peace out.

Yes it does, basic phyiscs alone will show that a person can not walk on water.. That you can't heal wounds with yourheads, that you can't revive under your own power days after..

You just said earlier your fine with people believing in god yet your not fine with people believing in Jesus Christ and his miracles,both break the laws of science,see your trying to discourage religion for the sake of reassuring yourself,for the sake of scientific reasoning.Your getting annoyed because religion doesn't provide you with factual evidence,yet neither does science provide the answers,science can't disprove a god exists,it also can't disprove the fact that Jesus walked on water or healed the ill with the power of the holy spirit...

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] 1: if you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then you'd be a christian.

2: strawman. I said that theGospels are historically reliable. prove that they are unreliable

3: you woulden't be lying, but there are much more plausible explanations for this, such as a cloud

4: who are these eye-witnesses that saw Buddha ascend into heaven?

5: do you believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?

Intranetusa

1. Obviously. Historians who believe that are expressing their personal Christian beliefs.

2. I said the ancient Greek text regarding Troy are reliable. Prove that Apollo didn't massacre Greeks out of anger.

3. Wouldn't that be the same for the gospels?

4. Contemporaries of Buddhists and historians. Buddha was an Indian prince who had many followers and many who chronicled his life...basically the same as the gospels & Jesus.

5. Yes, yes. Divinity and resurrection is a different matter. Do you believe Buddha existed and achieved enlightenment & nirvanna?

2: the Iliad, a work of poetry, was written nearly 500 years after these events took place. and I said that the reliability of the source is up to the skeptic to disprove, not the reliability of an event.

3: no it woulden't.

4: who are these contemporaries? who are these eye-witnesses?

5: he might have existed, but I haven't seen any evidence for it

[QUOTE="Intranetusa"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

1: historians are actually splite ~50/50 as to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead

2: are you willing to defend the historical reliability of these ancient texts?

3: The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eye-witnesses. Paul used Peter and James, both eye-witnesses, as his source. and the burden of proof is on you that the Gospel and biblical authors lied.

the main problem is that I have evidence that they were not lying.

fanofazrienoch

1. Don't pull numbers out of nowhere. Wherever you're getting your random poll numbers from, if it's 50-50, then 50% are professing a persona Christian belief.

2. Are you willing to defend the historical reliability of ancient writers? You're the one who said everything ancient writers wrote must be true. Don't back away from your arguement now...

3. I saw a cloud the other day and thought it was a UFO alien aircraft. If I wrote I saw an alien aircraft, I wouldn't be lying now would I?

There are eye wittness accounts that Buddha ascended to Nirvana through enlightenment while sitting under a tree. There are thousands of histroical accounts that mention this.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that Buddhists are lying.

2: strawman. I said that theGospels are historically reliable. prove that they are unreliable

3: you woulden't be lying, but there are much more plausible explanations for this, such as a cloud

4: who are these eye-witnesses that saw Buddha ascend into heaven?

5: do you believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?

Assuming anything (especially the supernatural) is true until it is proved to be false = bad idea. Be it an account or a video of a man flying.

Videos never lie. So until you figure out how david copperfield did it, should we assume that he can fly?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]were these historians eye-witnesses?Intranetusa

There are eye wittness accounts to Mohammad's ascension to heaven at the Dome of the Rock.

Again - If I were to see a cloud and think it's an alien spacecraft - I can easily write in my biography I saw alien spacecrafts. I wouldn't be lying and it would be an eye witness account.

and again, there are many more plausible explanations than there being an actual UFO

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

This is false the belief in a being that we have no proof to solidfy its existence fits into my definition of faith.. Not yours.. If yours was true, then I suppose god would be disbelieved sense the being seems to be doing an awful job, with over 50% of the people in the world starving.

sSubZerOo

Yes, fifty percent of people starving. . . .and this is God's fault, how? Would you like Him to make turkeys rain from the sky?

Loyalty based on prior performance = faith. Sorry you have one less insult to throw at people.

You make me laugh, what prior performance has god done?

Plenty. . .if someone you hire does a good job, will you hire him again? Why? Because you believe he''l do a good job again. That is loyalty based on prior performance, and is faith.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Intranetusa"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

1: historians are actually splite ~50/50 as to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead

2: are you willing to defend the historical reliability of these ancient texts?

3: The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eye-witnesses. Paul used Peter and James, both eye-witnesses, as his source. and the burden of proof is on you that the Gospel and biblical authors lied.

the main problem is that I have evidence that they were not lying.

Mr_sprinkles

1. Don't pull numbers out of nowhere. Wherever you're getting your random poll numbers from, if it's 50-50, then 50% are professing a persona Christian belief.

2. Are you willing to defend the historical reliability of ancient writers? You're the one who said everything ancient writers wrote must be true. Don't back away from your arguement now...

3. I saw a cloud the other day and thought it was a UFO alien aircraft. If I wrote I saw an alien aircraft, I wouldn't be lying now would I?

There are eye wittness accounts that Buddha ascended to Nirvana through enlightenment while sitting under a tree. There are thousands of histroical accounts that mention this.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that Buddhists are lying.

2: strawman. I said that theGospels are historically reliable. prove that they are unreliable

3: you woulden't be lying, but there are much more plausible explanations for this, such as a cloud

4: who are these eye-witnesses that saw Buddha ascend into heaven?

5: do you believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?

Assuming anything (especially the supernatural) is true until it is proved to be false = bad idea. Be it an account or a video of a man flying.

Videos never lie. So until you figure out how david copperfield did it, should we assume that he can fly?

I said that the reliability of a source is up the skeptic to disprove, not the existence of the supernatural, or the historicity of an event.

and there are many more plausible explanations than David copperfield actually flying, as this could be easily faked. a resurrection? ehhhhhh, no, not really.

1: so how is that relevant?

2: the Iliad, a work of poetry, was written nearly 500 years after these events took place. and I said that the reliability of the source is up to the skeptic to disprove, not the reliability of an event.

3: no it woulden't.

4: who are these contemporaries? who are these eye-witnesses?

5: he might have existed, but I haven't seen any evidence for it

fanofazrienoch

1. It just means your random poll numbers are not relevant. I can ask 100 Buddhist historians and 100% of them will say Buddha achieved nirvana and enlightenment.

2. I'm asking you if Greek historians and eyewtitnesses are accurate.

3. That would be a double standard...

4. You should read some Buddhist texts. There are eyewitnesses who can attest their his enlightenment.

5. Maybe you should read more.

who are these eye-witnesses? and again, there are many more plausible explanations than there being an actual UFO

fanofazrienoch

Read the Koran. There are many eye witnesses. There are plenty of historical accounts as well.

and there are many more plausible explinations than followers of Jesus living 2000 years ago claimming Jesus rising from the dead. Just like the image of the virgin mary in the cheese sandwhich

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

1: so how is that relevant?

2: the Iliad, a work of poetry, was written nearly 500 years after these events took place. and I said that the reliability of the source is up to the skeptic to disprove, not the reliability of an event.

3: no it woulden't.

4: who are these contemporaries? who are these eye-witnesses?

5: he might have existed, but I haven't seen any evidence for it

Intranetusa

1. It just means your random poll numbers are not relevant. I can ask 100 Buddhist historians and 100% of them will say Buddha achieved nirvana and enlightenment.

2. I'm asking you if Greek historians and eyewtitnesses are accurate.

3. That would be a double standard...

4. You should read some Buddhist texts. There are eyewitnesses who can attest their his enlightenment.

5. Maybe you should read more.

2: who are these historians? who are these eye-witnesses? and once again, I have evidence of its unreliability. it was written 500 years after the event, and it was not intended to be history

3: so how many more plausible explanations do you have for the following: empty tomb, appearences of jesus to the twelve, and to James and Paul, both of whom were skeptics, and the conversion of the disciples.

4: YOU provide YOUR proof. YOU do YOUR research.

5: I meant I haven't seen evidenec for his divinity.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

This is false the belief in a being that we have no proof to solidfy its existence fits into my definition of faith.. Not yours.. If yours was true, then I suppose god would be disbelieved sense the being seems to be doing an awful job, with over 50% of the people in the world starving.

Dracargen

Yes, fifty percent of people starving. . . .and this is God's fault, how? Would you like Him to make turkeys rain from the sky?

Loyalty based on prior performance = faith. Sorry you have one less insult to throw at people.

You make me laugh, what prior performance has god done?

Plenty. . .if someone you hire does a good job, will you hire him again? Why? Because you believe he''l do a good job again. That is loyalty based on prior performance, and is faith.

How so? Do you have evidnece of what god has done? You odviously believe god created everything, but you have no proof what so ever... Even what Jesus said in helping people and dieing for our sins.. Even then, that was just talk and not based on performance of the actual god...

And you missed my other point whihc I will see as a complete ignoring of it becaues you can't answer it.. So yet again I will state it, why has there been numerous religions from Islam, Budihism to others that have numerous eye witness accounts with historians in their religion that claim that these happened.. You shome how think you have a monopoly on supposed "proof" you claim you have?

[QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="smarb001"]

People try to disprove the bible because when there are billions of people believing in some stupid book, something is seriously wrong. Also, just because something is false doesn't mean we can't rag on it, for example scientology :P And I'll admit that Christian belief is not a bunch of "hooey", it is in fact simply an outdated, useless and pointless fairy tale used to explain things that can now be examined with a scientific approach, revealing the truth instead of some made up "hooey".

fanofazrienoch

Science can't (and doesn't) explain everything.....;)

But it explains almost everything, which is more than the bible does. Furthermore, the bible was created by humans, not God, so not only can it have human errors but using it to guide your life is frankly absurd, its like using the dictionary or a movie to guide your life (for lack of a better phrase). And also, it was created by people who had no knowledge of the natural world and were by todays standards very stupid, so trusting them is not something a shrewd person would do.

are we to throw that out as well?

exactly, thats why history cannot be 100% accurate, because the winning side always writes the history books. But thats off-topic.

and BTW, nothing short of mathematics is 100% accurate.

lol history supports the resurrection? BS. Jesus did not become a zombie and walk out of his tomb.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Intranetusa"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

1: historians are actually splite ~50/50 as to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead

2: are you willing to defend the historical reliability of these ancient texts?

3: The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eye-witnesses. Paul used Peter and James, both eye-witnesses, as his source. and the burden of proof is on you that the Gospel and biblical authors lied.

the main problem is that I have evidence that they were not lying.

fanofazrienoch

1. Don't pull numbers out of nowhere. Wherever you're getting your random poll numbers from, if it's 50-50, then 50% are professing a persona Christian belief.

2. Are you willing to defend the historical reliability of ancient writers? You're the one who said everything ancient writers wrote must be true. Don't back away from your arguement now...

3. I saw a cloud the other day and thought it was a UFO alien aircraft. If I wrote I saw an alien aircraft, I wouldn't be lying now would I?

There are eye wittness accounts that Buddha ascended to Nirvana through enlightenment while sitting under a tree. There are thousands of histroical accounts that mention this.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that Buddhists are lying.

2: strawman. I said that theGospels are historically reliable. prove that they are unreliable

3: you woulden't be lying, but there are much more plausible explanations for this, such as a cloud

4: who are these eye-witnesses that saw Buddha ascend into heaven?

5: do you believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?

Assuming anything (especially the supernatural) is true until it is proved to be false = bad idea. Be it an account or a video of a man flying.

Videos never lie. So until you figure out how david copperfield did it, should we assume that he can fly?

I said that the reliability of a source is up the skeptic to disprove, not the existence of the supernatural, or the historicity of an event.

and there are many more plausible explanations than David copperfield actually flying, as this could be easily faked. a resurrection? ehhhhhh, no, not really.

How so? Do you have evidnece of what god has done? You odviously believe god created everything, but you have no proof what so ever... Even what Jesus said in helping people and dieing for our sins.. Even then, that was just talk and not based on performance of the actual god...

And you missed my other point whihc I will see as a complete ignoring of it becaues you can't answer it.. So yet again I will state it, why has there been numerous religions from Islam, Budihism to others that have numerous eye witness accounts with historians in their religion that claim that these happened.. You shome how think you have a monopoly on supposed "proof" you claim you have?

sSubZerOo

I'm not the one in the historical discussion. . . . .your post has nothing to do with me.

Oh, and one more thing:

I am sorry I am done argueing here your line of thought is completely backward..sSubZerOo

So has my backward line of thought and ability to spell "arguing" re-intrigued you, or are you just a hypocrite?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

How so? Do you have evidnece of what god has done? You odviously believe god created everything, but you have no proof what so ever... Even what Jesus said in helping people and dieing for our sins.. Even then, that was just talk and not based on performance of the actual god...

And you missed my other point whihc I will see as a complete ignoring of it becaues you can't answer it.. So yet again I will state it, why has there been numerous religions from Islam, Budihism to others that have numerous eye witness accounts with historians in their religion that claim that these happened.. You shome how think you have a monopoly on supposed "proof" you claim you have?

Dracargen

I'm not the one in the historical discussion. . . . .your post has nothing to do with me.

Oh, and one more thing:

I am sorry I am done argueing here your line of thought is completely backward..sSubZerOo

So has my backward line of thought and ability to spell "arguing" re-intrigued you, or are you just a hypocrite?

Yep keep going on buddy I quite clearly see that you must resort to Ad-Homineim to avoid a losing arguement. I by no means am against your beliefs.. I really could care less its your faith, but to some how claim you have 100% evidence of this is laughable.. Specially when both Science and all crediable historical organizations never made the ascertion that Jesus was divine.. Hence why there is faith..

And guess what you have no phyiscal proof of god.. So in the end that exact same definition of Faith fits to you.. Refuse, I honeslty don't care because if you go to a real debate you will see how true that is.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

How so? Do you have evidnece of what god has done? You odviously believe god created everything, but you have no proof what so ever... Even what Jesus said in helping people and dieing for our sins.. Even then, that was just talk and not based on performance of the actual god...

And you missed my other point whihc I will see as a complete ignoring of it becaues you can't answer it.. So yet again I will state it, why has there been numerous religions from Islam, Budihism to others that have numerous eye witness accounts with historians in their religion that claim that these happened.. You shome how think you have a monopoly on supposed "proof" you claim you have?

sSubZerOo

I'm not the one in the historical discussion. . . . .your post has nothing to do with me.

Oh, and one more thing:

I am sorry I am done argueing here your line of thought is completely backward..sSubZerOo

So has my backward line of thought and ability to spell "arguing" re-intrigued you, or are you just a hypocrite?

Yep keep going on buddy I quite clearly see that you must resort to Ad-Homineim to avoid a losing arguement. I by no means am against your beliefs.. I really could care less its your faith, but to some how claim you have 100% evidence of this is laughable.. Specially when both Science and all crediable historical organizations never made the ascertion that Jesus was divine.. Hence why there is faith..

And guess what you have no phyiscal proof of god.. So in the end that exact same definition of Faith fits to you.. Refuse, I honeslty don't care because if you go to a real debate you will see how true that is.

I NEVER claimed to have 100% proof of God, and I defy you to post where I did.

You want a real debate? Go here and ask any of the Christians--any of them, just pick one out and ask to debate--to debate you. They all make me look like I know nothing, and make their opponents look far worse. Go ahead--we'll see how YOU do in a real debate.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

How so? Do you have evidnece of what god has done? You odviously believe god created everything, but you have no proof what so ever... Even what Jesus said in helping people and dieing for our sins.. Even then, that was just talk and not based on performance of the actual god...

And you missed my other point whihc I will see as a complete ignoring of it becaues you can't answer it.. So yet again I will state it, why has there been numerous religions from Islam, Budihism to others that have numerous eye witness accounts with historians in their religion that claim that these happened.. You shome how think you have a monopoly on supposed "proof" you claim you have?

Dracargen

I'm not the one in the historical discussion. . . . .your post has nothing to do with me.

Oh, and one more thing:

I am sorry I am done argueing here your line of thought is completely backward..sSubZerOo

So has my backward line of thought and ability to spell "arguing" re-intrigued you, or are you just a hypocrite?

Yep keep going on buddy I quite clearly see that you must resort to Ad-Homineim to avoid a losing arguement. I by no means am against your beliefs.. I really could care less its your faith, but to some how claim you have 100% evidence of this is laughable.. Specially when both Science and all crediable historical organizations never made the ascertion that Jesus was divine.. Hence why there is faith..

And guess what you have no phyiscal proof of god.. So in the end that exact same definition of Faith fits to you.. Refuse, I honeslty don't care because if you go to a real debate you will see how true that is.

I NEVER claimed to have 100% proof of God, and I defy you to post where I did.

You want a real debate? Go here and ask any of the Christians--any of them, just pick one out and ask to debate--to debate you. They all make me look like I know nothing, and make their opponents look far worse. Go ahead--we'll see how YOU do in a real debate.

Hence why oen needs faith and making it pointless to argue in the first place.. People seem to forget religion still requires a stretch beyond logical reason, which is faith.. This is not abad thing, I just don't understand how they som ehow think their beliefs can some how be claimed fact, specially when there is a huge room for reasonable doubt.. If this were a court case it would be thrown out.. Because there is just too many variables that arn't included, not to mention it defies a variables that we have never been able to defie... Hence why there is faith involved.. No one is saying that your beliefs are wrong, I think they are fine.. I just see it as hard to stomach that people say "I accept that Jesus was divine" isntead of "I believe Jesus was divine", as if they think its unarguable fact, which it is most CERTAINLY NOT.. It is also patronizing, as well as condescending.

I am personally am indifferent on the whole subject for things like Jesus's divinity, I really could care either way.. It just irks me with such little evidence that people can make such wild conclusions and state it as aboslute fact.. That is all..

Hence why oen needs faith and making it pointless to argue in the first place.. People seem to forget religion still requires a stretch beyond logical reason, which is faith.. This is not abad thing, I just don't understand how they som ehow think their beliefs can some how be claimed fact, specially when there is a huge room for reasonable doubt.. If this were a court case it would be thrown out.. Because there is just too many variables that arn't included, not to mention it defies a variables that we have never been able to defie... Hence why there is faith involved.. No one is saying that your beliefs are wrong, I think they are fine.. I just see it as hard to stomach that people say "I accept that Jesus was divine" isntead of "I believe Jesus was divine", as if they think its unarguable fact, which it is most CERTAINLY NOT.. It is also patronizing, as well as condescending.

I am personally am indifferent on the whole subject for things like Jesus's divinity, I really could care either way.. It just irks me with such little evidence that people can make such wild conclusions and state it as aboslute fact.. That is all..

sSubZerOo

Why do people believe in aliens?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Hence why oen needs faith and making it pointless to argue in the first place.. People seem to forget religion still requires a stretch beyond logical reason, which is faith.. This is not abad thing, I just don't understand how they som ehow think their beliefs can some how be claimed fact, specially when there is a huge room for reasonable doubt.. If this were a court case it would be thrown out.. Because there is just too many variables that arn't included, not to mention it defies a variables that we have never been able to defie... Hence why there is faith involved.. No one is saying that your beliefs are wrong, I think they are fine.. I just see it as hard to stomach that people say "I accept that Jesus was divine" isntead of "I believe Jesus was divine", as if they think its unarguable fact, which it is most CERTAINLY NOT.. It is also patronizing, as well as condescending.

I am personally am indifferent on the whole subject for things like Jesus's divinity, I really could care either way.. It just irks me with such little evidence that people can make such wild conclusions and state it as aboslute fact.. That is all..

Dracargen

Why do people believe in aliens?

The scientific community doesn't state it as fact.. But they do theorize it through LOGICAL deduction. That being said no one is claiming its aboslute fact, most rational people say there is a possibility.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="smarb001"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="smarb001"]

People try to disprove the bible because when there are billions of people believing in some stupid book, something is seriously wrong. Also, just because something is false doesn't mean we can't rag on it, for example scientology :P And I'll admit that Christian belief is not a bunch of "hooey", it is in fact simply an outdated, useless and pointless fairy tale used to explain things that can now be examined with a scientific approach, revealing the truth instead of some made up "hooey".

smarb001

Science can't (and doesn't) explain everything.....;)

But it explains almost everything, which is more than the bible does. Furthermore, the bible was created by humans, not God, so not only can it have human errors but using it to guide your life is frankly absurd, its like using the dictionary or a movie to guide your life (for lack of a better phrase). And also, it was created by people who had no knowledge of the natural world and were by todays standards very stupid, so trusting them is not something a shrewd person would do.

are we to throw that out as well?

exactly, thats why history cannot be 100% accurate, because the winning side always writes the history books. But thats off-topic.

and BTW, nothing short of mathematics is 100% accurate.

lol history supports the resurrection? BS. Jesus did not become a zombie and walk out of his tomb.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Intranetusa"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

1: historians are actually splite ~50/50 as to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead

2: are you willing to defend the historical reliability of these ancient texts?

3: The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eye-witnesses. Paul used Peter and James, both eye-witnesses, as his source. and the burden of proof is on you that the Gospel and biblical authors lied.

the main problem is that I have evidence that they were not lying.

Mr_sprinkles

1. Don't pull numbers out of nowhere. Wherever you're getting your random poll numbers from, if it's 50-50, then 50% are professing a persona Christian belief.

2. Are you willing to defend the historical reliability of ancient writers? You're the one who said everything ancient writers wrote must be true. Don't back away from your arguement now...

3. I saw a cloud the other day and thought it was a UFO alien aircraft. If I wrote I saw an alien aircraft, I wouldn't be lying now would I?

There are eye wittness accounts that Buddha ascended to Nirvana through enlightenment while sitting under a tree. There are thousands of histroical accounts that mention this.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that Buddhists are lying.

2: strawman. I said that theGospels are historically reliable. prove that they are unreliable

3: you woulden't be lying, but there are much more plausible explanations for this, such as a cloud

4: who are these eye-witnesses that saw Buddha ascend into heaven?

5: do you believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?

Assuming anything (especially the supernatural) is true until it is proved to be false = bad idea. Be it an account or a video of a man flying.

Videos never lie. So until you figure out how david copperfield did it, should we assume that he can fly?

I said that the reliability of a source is up the skeptic to disprove, not the existence of the supernatural, or the historicity of an event.

and there are many more plausible explanations than David copperfield actually flying, as this could be easily faked. a resurrection? ehhhhhh, no, not really.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Intranetusa"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

1: historians are actually splite ~50/50 as to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead

2: are you willing to defend the historical reliability of these ancient texts?

3: The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eye-witnesses. Paul used Peter and James, both eye-witnesses, as his source. and the burden of proof is on you that the Gospel and biblical authors lied.

the main problem is that I have evidence that they were not lying.

fanofazrienoch

1. Don't pull numbers out of nowhere. Wherever you're getting your random poll numbers from, if it's 50-50, then 50% are professing a persona Christian belief.

2. Are you willing to defend the historical reliability of ancient writers? You're the one who said everything ancient writers wrote must be true. Don't back away from your arguement now...

3. I saw a cloud the other day and thought it was a UFO alien aircraft. If I wrote I saw an alien aircraft, I wouldn't be lying now would I?

There are eye wittness accounts that Buddha ascended to Nirvana through enlightenment while sitting under a tree. There are thousands of histroical accounts that mention this.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that Buddhists are lying.

2: strawman. I said that theGospels are historically reliable. prove that they are unreliable

3: you woulden't be lying, but there are much more plausible explanations for this, such as a cloud

4: who are these eye-witnesses that saw Buddha ascend into heaven?

5: do you believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?

Assuming anything (especially the supernatural) is true until it is proved to be false = bad idea. Be it an account or a video of a man flying.

Videos never lie. So until you figure out how david copperfield did it, should we assume that he can fly?

I said that the reliability of a source is up the skeptic to disprove, not the existence of the supernatural, or the historicity of an event.

and there are many more plausible explanations than David copperfield actually flying, as this could be easily faked. a resurrection? ehhhhhh, no, not really.

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? fanofazrienoch

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

sSubZerOo

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

fanofazrienoch

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

Mr_sprinkles

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

should have said that earlier, but I assumed that you would be able to extrapolate that from the "no one dies for a lie" bit.

theoretically, im catholic. as in, my whole family is, but i alone just dont believe

so no, im not offended :|

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

Mr_sprinkles

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

Totally agree.. Not to mention you have to prove in the first place what a divine being is.. Your argument is completely circular..

Basially this is your logic..

Jesus was divine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Due to Miracles performed..

These miracles happened because Jesus was divine..

But first of all we can't even get enough evidence on Jesus's miracles to begin with, aside from some unknown eye witness accounts.. When something as bold asthis is stated, it needs to have a mountain of data, to go against the uncountable pieces of recorded evidence we have that the laws of physics are absolute..

Thats your faith speaking.. You have no solid proof and you believe Jesus was divine.. You can not make a solid argument beyond a reasonable doubt.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

fanofazrienoch

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

should have said that earlier, but I assumed that you would be able to extrapolate that from the "no one dies for a lie" bit.

Sounds like a baseless assertion to me. I'm sure people would die for a lie if they believed it to be for the greater good.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

sSubZerOo

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

Totally agree.. Not to mention you have to prove in the first place what a divine being is.. Your argument is completely circular..

Basially this is your logic..

Jesus was divine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Due to Miracles performed..

These miracles happened because Jesus was divine..

But first of all we can't even get enough evidence on Jesus's miracles to begin with, aside from some unknown eye witness accounts.. When something as bold asthis is stated, it needs to have a mountain of data, to go against the uncountable pieces of recorded evidence we have that the laws of physics are absolute..

Thats your faith speaking.. You have no solid proof and you believe Jesus was divine.. You can not make a solid argument beyond a reasonable doubt.

2: no one could not construct a worse strawman than that! I said Jesus was divine, and his miracles attest to this. IE, the miracles (resurrection) prove he was divine.

the empty tomb, the post resurrection appearences, the disciples' belief in the resurrection & miracles, the fact that their beliefs dont conflict or contradict eachother, and Paul's conversion, all support the historicity of the resurrection and the miracles.

and then you called ECREE on me (you didn't say it outright, but it is SOOO easily implied from that post), but ECREE suffers from a serious problem. "Extraordinary" is subjective. there is no objective way to measure how objective a claim is, and there is no way to measure how extraordinary a piece of evidence for this claim is.

in a nutshell, ECREE is subjective nonsense.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

Mr_sprinkles

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

should have said that earlier, but I assumed that you would be able to extrapolate that from the "no one dies for a lie" bit.

Sounds like a baseless assertion to me. I'm sure people would die for a lie if they believed it to be for the greater good.

I feel that if Christianity is false, and that the Bible is a "fairy tale," then the people against it would now ignore it. Instead, and like on this board, it's usually questioned or even attacked. If it's fake, then why do you fear it? If it's already Illegitimate, then why constantly try to discredit Christians? Does the case for the Christian belief carry weight? If it does, then you admit that it's not all a bunch of hooey?

I know that people get a bad impression of some aspects of Christianity. However, if you truly understand God, then you won't let stupidity sway your perception. I've been a believer most all of my life, and I believe that logic and common sense is paramount. I'm not a "religious zealot" and I'm not "teh intolerant." I simply believe the Bible.

I have one final question. Why are you intolerant of Christianity? That's hypocritical when you accuse Christians of being intolerant.

MayorJohnny

i think the main reason people challenge and criticise christians (and other religions for that matter) is because they dont understand the idea of faith. if you think about it from an athiests perspective, the story of some supernatural being creating the entire universe in 7 days and having total and ultimate power sounds a little....far fetched to say the least. therefore i guess its natural to want to chalenge such ideas to see what answers can be given to support it.

i once had a science lesson and my teacher (who was also a christian) was doing sort of a debate on creation and evolution...and whatver people aksed him, he had answers...i thought it was cool cos he had really done his research and knew all this stuff...what really pi$$es me off as a christian is not when people ask me questions about my faith and challenge it, but simply dismiss it as a load of crap without really knowing anything and accusing me of being stupid for believing in such a thing. that said, i dont always know the answers to all the questions people ask me, but i know people who would, and it also annoys me when people expect me to have an answer to everything, like im some kind of encyclopedia of knwledge and then laugh because they have caught me out...

my belief is my choice, as it is for all other christians... if someone deosnt believe it thats fine with me, but if they are willing to at least listen, then thats better than just dismissing it before even hearing what we have to say

Im a Christian, but I hate other Christians.

I seem to hang out with satanists and atheists. Idk why im Christitan.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

fanofazrienoch

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

should have said that earlier, but I assumed that you would be able to extrapolate that from the "no one dies for a lie" bit.

Sounds like a baseless assertion to me. I'm sure people would die for a lie if they believed it to be for the greater good.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

fanofazrienoch

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

Totally agree.. Not to mention you have to prove in the first place what a divine being is.. Your argument is completely circular..

Basially this is your logic..

Jesus was divine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Due to Miracles performed..

These miracles happened because Jesus was divine..

But first of all we can't even get enough evidence on Jesus's miracles to begin with, aside from some unknown eye witness accounts.. When something as bold asthis is stated, it needs to have a mountain of data, to go against the uncountable pieces of recorded evidence we have that the laws of physics are absolute..

Thats your faith speaking.. You have no solid proof and you believe Jesus was divine.. You can not make a solid argument beyond a reasonable doubt.

People during those times had no education.. Many mistook things for what they really were, and believed it to be a sign from god.. You think these people were rational well educated people? Give me a break.

2: no one could not construct a worse strawman than that! I said Jesus was divine, and his miracles attest to this. IE, the miracles (resurrection) prove he was divine.

Thats not a straw man argument, because I never gave an example analogy for an argument.. What I pointed out is you have no condition to prove otherwise.. The oen you try to do doesn't have enough evidence what so ever.

the empty tomb, the post resurrection appearences, the disciples' belief in the resurrection & miracles, the fact that their beliefs dont conflict or contradict eachother, and Paul's conversion, all support the historicity of the resurrection and the miracles.

and then you called ECREE on me (you didn't say it outright, but it is SOOO easily implied from that post), but ECREE suffers from a serious problem. "Extraordinary" is subjective. there is no objective way to measure how objective a claim is, and there is no way to measure how extraordinary a piece of evidence for this claim is.

in a nutshell, ECREE is subjective nonsense.

Subjective non sense? To maek a air tight case in proving fact there has to be room beyond reaosnable doubt.. Aside from eye witness acounts, thats ALL you have.. You have no other proof otehr then this.. And I am sorry but no historical evidence in history has been accepted as fact that has defied the laws of nature and phyiscs.. It just doesn't happen..

And extraodinary is not subjective, when I am pointing out that its direclty defying phyiscs all together.. If I claimed I could fly, and that hundreds of other people said I could to.. Would you believe me? Of course not you would want to see it for your self, as well as check it if it were a trick.. Why isn't the exact same scrutiny given to Jesus? I suppose Magiacans must have had divine powers to, after all many people claimed they knew magic..

Yet again you have no provided enough evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt.. We have numerous other stories in other religions that have cliamed eye witnesses.. What makes this one so special? Whats worse is it directly contridicts the laws of nature..

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

Mr_sprinkles

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

should have said that earlier, but I assumed that you would be able to extrapolate that from the "no one dies for a lie" bit.

Sounds like a baseless assertion to me. I'm sure people would die for a lie if they believed it to be for the greater good.

1: you're not an eye-witness

2: you're not even contemporary

3: you dont have any other evidence (no other corroborating testimony) but yourself.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

fanofazrienoch

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

should have said that earlier, but I assumed that you would be able to extrapolate that from the "no one dies for a lie" bit.

Sounds like a baseless assertion to me. I'm sure people would die for a lie if they believed it to be for the greater good.

1: you're not an eye-witness

2: you're not even contemporary

3: you dont have any other evidence (no other corroborating testimony) but yourself.

2. If i was, would that mean hitler could shoot lasers?

3. what evidence other than accounts from the bible is there for ressurection?

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The laws of nature and physics are far more crediable then any person.. So odviously the author was lying.

fanofazrienoch

also, the Gospel writers were martyred. ever wonder why no historian takes your theory seriously?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] now we have to ask what is the best explanation, that hitler could shoot laser beams out of his eyes, or that the writer was lying? Mr_sprinkles

palestinian suicide bombers

iraqi suicide bombers

nobody dies for a lie.

should have said that earlier, but I assumed that you would be able to extrapolate that from the "no one dies for a lie" bit.

Sounds like a baseless assertion to me. I'm sure people would die for a lie if they believed it to be for the greater good.

1: you're not an eye-witness

2: you're not even contemporary

Niether are you.

3: you dont have any other evidence (no other corroborating testimony) but yourself.

And niether do you.. What you have is a 2000 year old piece of text that has been rewritten thousands of times.. By eye witnesses we have little to no knownledge of, who were lower ****people with no education.. Who we were never able to cross examine.. Nor did we have any other famous historian of that time, take much notes on Jesus.

Do you really think that if Jesus performed these miracles during his life before his death, that the Romans would of had him killed? I guess Jesus was just very sneaky with these miracles so only his devoted followers could see this..

How bout the fact we have had many otehr accounts in histories of said messiahs? You thought Jesus was the first? Give me a break.

I have to agree that the biblie is outdated, and made by people wondering how the world was made.

Take for example Adam and Eve. Instead of Eve being made from the soils like Adam was, she was made from Adam's flesh and bones, a statement purposely put in the bible to demoralize and discriminate against women for milleniums to come.

The ressurection, making of wine, curing the sick is most likely a bit far fetched too. I mean, why would Jesus make wine out of water. Wine, a destructive substance even more destructive back then? Isn't he our savior?

The bible do prove some valid points. The fact that we were made from the soil matches the fact that we have many minerals (calcium, silicon, carbon, oxygen, ect) in our body (most of the outer earth is made of silicon and oxygen, and we have silicon in us, and we can't live without oxygen). History does also prove that Jesus did indeed exist, and that he was crucified.

1: you didn't see my later post. no one dies for something they know to be a lie.

People during those times had no education.. Many mistook things for what they really were, and believed it to be a sign from god.. You think these people were rational well educated people? Give me a break.sSubZerOo

*facepalm* so because they are not as educated as we modern westerners are, they would be more than willing to die for something they know for 100% to be a lie? give me a ****ing break

2: no one could not construct a worse strawman than that! I said Jesus was divine, and his miracles attest to this. IE, the miracles (resurrection) prove he was divine.

Thats not a straw man argument, because I never gave an example analogy for an argument.. What I pointed out is you have no condition to prove otherwise.. The oen you try to do doesn't have enough evidence what so ever.sSubZerOo

actually, yes, that was a strawman. you said that I said Jesus was divine because of his miracles, and that his miracles happened because he was divine. that was not my argument. you constructed a strawman.

the empty tomb, the post resurrection appearences, the disciples' belief in the resurrection & miracles, the fact that their beliefs dont conflict or contradict eachother, and Paul's conversion, all support the historicity of the resurrection and the miracles.

and then you called ECREE on me (you didn't say it outright, but it is SOOO easily implied from that post), but ECREE suffers from a serious problem. "Extraordinary" is subjective. there is no objective way to measure how objective a claim is, and there is no way to measure how extraordinary a piece of evidence for this claim is.

in a nutshell, ECREE is subjective nonsense.

Subjective non sense? To maek a air tight case in proving fact there has to be room beyond reaosnable doubt.. Aside from eye witness acounts, thats ALL you have.. You have no other proof otehr then this.. And I am sorry but no historical evidence in history has been accepted as fact that has defied the laws of nature and phyiscs.. It just doesn't happen..sSubZerOo

once again, historians are split on this matter. so dont give me any BS about "oh, historians dont take other miracles as fact" because roughly half of them who have credentials in this field do accept it as history.

And extraodinary is not subjective, when I am pointing out that its direclty defying phyiscs all together.. If I claimed I could fly, and that hundreds of other people said I could to.. Would you believe me? Of course not you would want to see it for your self, as well as check it if it were a trick.. Why isn't the exact same scrutiny given to Jesus? I suppose Magiacans must have had divine powers to, after all many people claimed they knew magic..sSubZerOo

so Jesus was a magician? and his miracles can be replicated? okay. I have a challenge for you. have someone shoot you in the head 5 times with a .50 caliber browning machine gun, and have a doctor on sight to confirm that you are in fact dead. bury your body (well have someone else to) in a dark tomb, and if I see you walking around perfectly healthy, I'll believe that you are divine.

and yes, extraordinary IS subjective. you cannot measure how extraordinary a claim is.

Yet again you have no provided enough evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt.. We have numerous other stories in other religions that have cliamed eye witnesses.. What makes this one so special? Whats worse is it directly contridicts the laws of nature..

sSubZerOo

2: "reasonable" is also subjective

3: who are these other eye-witnesses for the other religions?

4: you STILL have not provided a shred of evidence that a supernatural entity is subject to the laws of nature. I already told you to not pull that bull**** with me until you provide EVIDENCE.

Do you really think that if Jesus performed these miracles during his life before his death, that the Romans would of had him killed? I guess Jesus was just very sneaky with these miracles so only his devoted followers could see this..

Subzero, people fear what they don't understand

My only answer is yes, they are annoying because apparently the earth is 6k years old even with all the evidence against them.

My only answer is yes, they are annoying because apparently the earth is 6k years old even with all the evidence against them.

sammynmunch