Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

As I listened to episode 17, I couldn't help but wonder why someone like Travis (the professing Christian who came on the show) would put themselves in the spotlight and try to defend a faith that he had so little knowledge about.

As I continued to listen to the discussion, there were a few things brought up that Travis failed to give an answer for/to, and these are, in fact, what my whole point of starting this new thread is about.

To begin with, I'd like to just start with one of the basic things that came up in the discussion:

- the "contradictions" of the resurrection

This is, in my opinion, one of the most important topics throughout the entire discussion because it questions the very foundation of the Christian faith, and was also one of the best arguments that was employed "against" Travis (I put the word "against" in quotation marks because the general tenor of the debate was not vicious at all, and the word "against" has, typically, a very aggressive and negative connotation to it).

I'll begin by stating assuredly that there are no contradictions pertaining to the resurrection of Christ; the only discrepancies that exist are merely the differences in the wording of the events. This entire "contradiction" is summed up in a succinct and extremely logical explanation: all of them are true.

Let me continue:

As it is, Luke is the one who gives us the highest count of people who visited the tomb that Sunday morning (he cites that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and ?the other women?); so now we must compare his information to the other gospels.

So let's put these people in order. We have:

-Mary (Jesus' mom; also called "the mother of James" [James was Jesus' brother])
-Mary Magdalene
-Joanna

and

-"the other women"

Now let's compare all of the gospels and see if they corroborate this story in any way, and if they're at all able to be resolved with this sort of "character roster".

Matthew says that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" visited the tomb; are they both in our roster of biblical figures? Yes.

Mark says that "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome" visited the tomb on Sunday morning; are they in our roster of biblical figures? Yes. (to assume that Luke categorized Salome as one of "the other women" is a feasible and logical conclusion)

And lastly, John mentions that "Mary Magdalene" visited the tomb that Sunday morning; again, is she in our roster of biblical figures? Yes.

So now, is it possible that Matthew's, Mark's, and John's accounts can be considered in congruity with Luke's gospel, on account that none of their gospels contain any limiting adjectives? (by that, i mean, neither of the gospels contain verses penned as, "only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,? or, ?Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb."Eye-wink

I believe so.

It is not irrational to conclude that all four gospels are true; it's irrational to think that they are all saying the same thing, verbatim.

The issue here is mere supplementation; Luke's gospel emphasizes that there was a "crowd" who visited the tomb; Matthew thought only to tell of two women (both Marys) in this crowd; Mark thought to tell of just the two Marys and one of "the other women"; John concluded to only tell of Mary Magdalene.

The key here is supplementation.

Supplementation; not contradiction.

Consider this analogy:

"Suppose that you have 10 one-dollar bills in your pocket. Suppose further that someone comes up to you and asks, 'Do you have a dollar bill in your pocket?' Naturally, you respond in the affirmative. Suppose another person asks, 'Do you have five dollars in your pocket?,' and again you say yes. Finally, another person asks, 'Do you have ten dollars in your pocket?', and you say yes for the third time. Did you tell the truth every time? Yes. Were any of your answers contradictory? No. Were all three statements about the contents of your pockets different? Yes- supplementation, not contradiction."

-quote taken from ApologeticsPress.org

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

Terrible analogy. Nobody was asking the gospel writers IF so-and-so were at the tomb, to which various answers could ALL be considered "correct". They were each writing their own narrative, and had free rein to say who was there - which they supposedly knew. Yet the accounts differ. WHY would John, for example, leave out that Jesus' own MOTHER was there, if he had known that? Did he not know? Then the rest of the gospels are open to doubt. Did he know but redact the story? Same result. Did he know but think it unimportant? IMO, same result.

And of course, this is an easy example you've chosen, since it really isn't LOGICALLY contradictory, though anyone with any sense would have to at least ask what the heck is wrong with John in this instance. There are other passages you haven't touched on that ARE logically contradictory.


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
ho-hum

i'm sorry. it's in my nature. it always has been, it always will be, i like it, it's who i am.
i have to rain on people's parades. i am a big poopy-pants parade-rainer.

kudos, adamryan, on a very professional analysis. but.....

adamryan wrote:

It is not irrational to conclude that all four gospels are true; it's irrational to think that they are all saying the same thing, verbatim.

...if we want to get into stating the rationality of things, we want to talk contradictions, rad. let's.
it is contradictory to logic to believe that anything that is dead can spontaneously return to a living state. therefore, it would be irrational to argue the semantics of a story about such a thing with the aim of somehow making it seem true.
let us operate under the presumption that Jesus was an actual person. is it possible that he was killed, entombed, and then he somehow resumed living suddenly and was healed of his wounds? no, but let's just for fun say that yes, there is a .00000001% chance that this could happen. is it not waaaaaayyy more possible that he was simply never killed in the first place? i'd have to say yeah. so then logically, given the choice between one explanation of events or the other, i'm gonna go with the more probable, at least somewhat plausible one.
i mean, c'mon, you have to admit the people writing this stuff were a little less knowledgeable, a little more gullible than we are today. it's cool, whatever, they were all old-timey and shit. so they thought the earth was flat, they thought migration cycles of locusts were plagues sent by god, and they thought they saw jesus get killed. it's all good, the guys that came before them thought the sun was god.

Fear out

Fear is the mindkiller.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

jester700 wrote:
Terrible analogy.

Actually, I think it's a very good analogy. It shows how by unspecifying a statement, you can have three different things (statements, in this situation) be true, even though they are worded differently.

jester700 wrote:
Nobody was asking the gospel writers IF so-and-so were at the tomb, to which various answers could ALL be considered "correct".

I never said anything implying that "people were asking' (unless you consider my rewording of the beginning of Luke's gospel); it just seems like a very plausible explanation for why the gospels word this event differently.

jester700 wrote:
They were each writing their own narrative, and had free rein to say who was there - which they supposedly knew. Yet the accounts differ.

Right; they were writing to different audiences. Just because they "differ" in the wording of the events doesn't mean that they are telling different stories. In fact, if all four of the gospels were written in exactly the same way, imagine how easy it would be to just dismiss any of their claims with a statement of, "They all copied Mark."

Four different narratives of the same event; of course they're going to be written slightly different.

jester700 wrote:
WHY would John, for example, leave out that Jesus' own MOTHER was there, if he had known that? Did he not know? Then the rest of the gospels are open to doubt. Did he know but redact the story? Same result. Did he know but think it unimportant? IMO, same result.

Why would there be any need to stress that Mary (Jesus' mother) was there? Just as Luke had no problem categorizing Salome into the "other women" group, John probably felt no need to specify that Mary was with Mary Magdalene. The testimony of a woman meant nothing; the testimony of two women wouldn't have changed that.

jester700 wrote:
And of course, this is an easy example you've chosen, since it really isn't LOGICALLY contradictory, though anyone with any sense would have to at least ask what the heck is wrong with John in this instance.

You're right. It's so confusing. I mean, it's not like John lived at a time when the testimony of a woman was ancillary to a man's or anything. Eye-wink

jester700 wrote:
There are other passages you haven't touched on that ARE logically contradictory.

Cite them for me?

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

DrFear wrote:
i'm sorry. it's in my nature. it always has been, it always will be, i like it, it's who i am.
i have to rain on people's parades. i am a big poopy-pants parade-rainer.

Well at least you're not in denial. Laughing out loud

DrFear wrote:

kudos, adamryan, on a very professional analysis. but.....

Thank you, sort of.

adamryan wrote:

It is not irrational to conclude that all four gospels are true; it's irrational to think that they are all saying the same thing, verbatim.

DrFear wrote:
...if we want to get into stating the rationality of things, we want to talk contradictions, rad. let's.
it is contradictory to logic to believe that anything that is dead can spontaneously return to a living state.

I agree with you on this one; and if I ever meet someone who believes that anything can spontaneously regenerate back to life from the dead, I'll have them talk to you so you can talk some sense into them. Promise.

DrFear wrote:

therefore, it would be irrational to argue the semantics of a story about such a thing with the aim of somehow making it seem true.

Your argument is flawed; it assumes that the account claims Jesus "spontaneously" came back to life. Jesus didn't spontaneously come back to life. The New Testament antithetically proclaims,


"But God raised Him from the dead, freeing Him from the agony of death."

-Acts 2:24


"God raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

-Acts 2:32


"You killed the Author of Life, but God raised Him from the dead."

-Acts 3:15a


"then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."

-Acts 4:10


"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
"

-Acts 5:30


"But God raised Him from the dead,"

-Acts 13:30

Jesus didn't spontaneously come back to life; He was just the first, of those who have "fallen asleep", to be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:20).

DrFear wrote:

let us operate under the presumption that Jesus was an actual person. is it possible that he was killed, entombed, and then he somehow resumed living suddenly and was healed of his wounds? no, but let's just for fun say that yes, there is a .00000001% chance that this could happen. is it not waaaaaayyy more possible that he was simply never killed in the first place?


"Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

-John 19:34

Jesus was beaten, flogged, and crucified; and then His heart was pierced by a spear. It's not, "waaaaaayyy more possible" to survive that.

DrFear wrote:

i'd have to say yeah.

I'd have to say no.

DrFear wrote:

so then logically, given the choice between one explanation of events or the other, i'm gonna go with the more probable, at least somewhat plausible one.

You're going to stick to the idea that a man survived being beaten by a brigade of Roman soliders, flogged to the point of near-death, crucified for six hours, and then pierced through the heart with a spear?

How is that at all, "the more probable, at least somewhat plausible" option?

DrFear wrote:

i mean, c'mon, you have to admit the people writing this stuff were a little less knowledgeable, a little more gullible than we are today. it's cool, whatever, they were all old-timey and shit. so they thought the earth was flat, they thought migration cycles of locusts were plagues sent by god, and they thought they saw jesus get killed. it's all good, the guys that came before them thought the sun was god.

Fear out

Interesting perspective you have. I don't think it's that rational, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

*sigh*
Ok, like i said, it's completely pointless and irrational to argue the impossible point of resurrection.
basically, your argument is that he wasn't spontaneously resurrected, god just did it magically. so my bad, i wasn't clear enough in my definitions. here: something that happens without an immediate physical cause would be spontaneous, aye? even if god were a true entity, theists much like yourself contend god to exist outside the conventions of time, space, and the natural world. not a physical cause, therefore, in natural, physical terms, spontaneous.
as for your spear-stabbing, swinging from a tree, Mel Gibson gore stories: it has been suggested, i'm not going to search through mountains of text right now, but you can if you like (Bloodline of the Holy Grail, among others) that the butchered christ was a substitute prisoner, a stunt double if you will, and there's also the excommunication three-day standard explanation (which is mostly plausible with regards to the Lazarus resurrection) yada-yada-yada, and if David mother-fucking Copperfield and Criss mother-fucking Angel can visually deceive people in this day and age, why couldn't the Romans do it a few thousand years ago.....it all comes out way more plausible than big ol' god propping jesus the zombie wizard back up to float around the stage for a big ol' finale, thanks for your patronage. i'm goin' to bed.

Fear out

P.S. MattShizzle's list of biblical inaccuracies of the natural world should serve as a battering ram for the scientific dumbness and gullibilities of which i speak....eth

Fear is the mindkiller.


spentley
Posts: 64
Joined: 2006-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

adamryan wrote:


"But God raised Him from the dead, freeing Him from the agony of death."

-Acts 2:24

"God raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

-Acts 2:32

"You killed the Author of Life, but God raised Him from the dead."

-Acts 3:15a

"then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."

-Acts 4:10

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
"
-Acts 5:30

"But God raised Him from the dead,"

-Acts 13:30
-adamryan

Same God that said the world was created 6000 years ago?

Same God that said life came from 2 humans, Adam and Eve?

If someone wants to continue that list giver. I think my point is made enough.

So if God was wrong about this.. how do you honestly expect me to believe anything to do with this god? Let alone, he defied all logic and installed life in a dead human body.

I wonder sometimes... not how christianity could possibly work, but with the given evidence, how someone can believe.

God is the omnimax creator by definition of major religions. If there is evidence that the religion is incorrect about the nature of reality, then there is evidence that the God the religion defines does not exist.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

DrFear wrote:
*sigh*
Ok, like i said, it's completely pointless and irrational to argue the impossible point of resurrection.

If my contention than an omnipotent Being exists, and this Being is powerful enough to create a universe by merely speaking, then I think the idea of resurrecting a body back to life isn't an "impossible point".

I will agree with you that a naturalistc resurrection from death is impossible, however. But again, the New Testament never says that the event was a naturalistic, spontaneous event.

DrFear wrote:

basically, your argument is that he wasn't spontaneously resurrected, god just did it magically. so my bad, i wasn't clear enough in my definitions.

Well I certainly thought it was important enough to clarify.

DrFear wrote:

here: something that happens without an immediate physical cause would be spontaneous, aye?

Agreed.

DrFear wrote:

even if god were a true entity, theists much like yourself contend god to exist outside the conventions of time, space, and the natural world.

Right; God exists both inside and outside of the space-time domain. However, in no way does this limit His interactions within the "natural world".

DrFear wrote:

not a physical cause, therefore, in natural, physical terms, spontaneous.

Your conclusion lies on flawed logic: it presupposes that God must have to be tangibly physical to interact with/in our physical universe. If God created the universe, He can interact with it; the universe can't limit God. The universe is physical (in a sense); God isn't physical. (It doesn't mean that He is limited to only intangible behavior, though.) So no, any sort of divine intervention (i.e. the resurrection of Christ) within our physical universe isn't spontaneous just because it is a physical action and God isn't; God can interact with physical events.

DrFear wrote:

it has been suggested, i'm not going to search through mountains of text right now, but you can if you like (Bloodline of the Holy Grail, among others) that the butchered christ was a substitute prisoner, a stunt double if you will

Does this book provide legitimate evidence for a case that Christ being a "stunt double" is even a possible explanation? If so, please cite some of the material. I've only heard of this book; I haven't read it yet.

DrFear wrote:

and there's also the excommunication three-day standard explanation (which is mostly plausible with regards to the Lazarus resurrection) yada-yada-yada

I couldn't find a link to this "standard explantion". Please provide one for me to review.

DrFear wrote:

and if David mother-fucking Copperfield and Criss mother-fucking Angel can visually deceive people in this day and age, why couldn't the Romans do it a few thousand years ago

David Copperfield and Criss Angel are trained professionals who have devoted their entire lives to entertaining people with illusionary magic; the Roman soldier who pierced Jesus' side was an executioner. That's why.

1) The Romans wouldn't have cared enough to have spared any convicted criminal their lives; their job was to execute.

2) You said earlier that people in general weren't as smart in Jesus' day as we are now; if this whole piercing-Jesus'-heart was a magic trick, then explain John's mention of "blood and water" coming from Jesus' pierced chest. Why would John say "blood and water", and not just "blood"? In fact, how would John even know to mention "blood and water"?

Isn't it a little bit more rational to conclude that John said he saw "blood and water" because he actually saw two seperate liquids pouring from Jesus' dead body? (the "water" would being the fluid from the sac surrounding the heart. A spear pierces the chest: the "water" flows out with the blood.)

I think that the mere fact that these two liquids are mentioned seperately and together provide rather conclusive post-mortem evidence that Jesus died on the cross.

DrFear wrote:

.....it all comes out way more plausible than big ol' god propping jesus the zombie wizard back up to float around the stage for a big ol' finale, thanks for your patronage. i'm goin' to bed.

I'll wait for your response to my other replies before I respond to this one.

Personally, I think it's just alot more rational to think that 2000 years ago a Roman soldier fulfilled his duty of ensuring death to a Jewish revolutionary criminal.

DrFear wrote:

P.S. MattShizzle's list of biblical inaccuracies of the natural world should serve as a battering ram for the scientific dumbness and gullibilities of which i speak....eth

MattShizzle needs to get a new battering ram because all of these "contradictions" have answers . Pick one and we'll discuss it.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

adamryan wrote:


"But God raised Him from the dead, freeing Him from the agony of death."

-Acts 2:24

"God raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

-Acts 2:32

"You killed the Author of Life, but God raised Him from the dead."

-Acts 3:15a

"then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."

-Acts 4:10

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
"
-Acts 5:30

"But God raised Him from the dead,"

-Acts 13:30
-adamryan

spentley wrote:

Same God that said the world was created 6000 years ago?

Yep.

spentley wrote:

Same God that said life came from 2 humans, Adam and Eve?

Yep.

spentley wrote:

If someone wants to continue that list giver. I think my point is made enough.

Your first sentence makes no sense and your second sentence mentions a point; which point? You didn't make a point. All you did was ask (cynically rhetorical or not) two questions.

spentley wrote:

So if God was wrong about this.. how do you honestly expect me to believe anything to do with this god? Let alone, he defied all logic and installed life in a dead human body.

Provide evidence about what God was wrong about, and then maybe you'll make sense.

Eye-wink

spentley wrote:

I wonder sometimes... not how christianity could possibly work, but with the given evidence, how someone can believe.

I wonder, not how your thought process works, but how you think that you made a point.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Atheist_Scathe
Posts: 69
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

adamryan wrote:
DrFear wrote:
i'm sorry. it's in my nature. it always has been, it always will be, i like it, it's who i am.
i have to rain on people's parades. i am a big poopy-pants parade-rainer.

Quote:
Well at least you're not in denial. :D

DrFear wrote:

kudos, adamryan, on a very professional analysis. but.....

Quote:
Thank you, sort of.

adamryan wrote:

It is not irrational to conclude that all four gospels are true; it's irrational to think that they are all saying the same thing, verbatim.

DrFear wrote:
...if we want to get into stating the rationality of things, we want to talk contradictions, rad. let's.
it is contradictory to logic to believe that anything that is dead can spontaneously return to a living state.

Quote:
I agree with you on this one; and if I ever meet someone who believes that anything can spontaneously regenerate back to life from the dead, I'll have them talk to you so you can talk some sense into them. Promise.

DrFear wrote:

therefore, it would be irrational to argue the semantics of a story about such a thing with the aim of somehow making it seem true.

Quote:
Your argument is flawed; it assumes that the account claims Jesus "spontaneously" came back to life. Jesus didn't spontaneously come back to life. The New Testament antithetically proclaims,


"But God raised Him from the dead, freeing Him from the agony of death."

-Acts 2:24


"God raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

-Acts 2:32


"You killed the Author of Life, but God raised Him from the dead."

-Acts 3:15a


"then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."

-Acts 4:10


"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
"

-Acts 5:30


"But God raised Him from the dead,"

-Acts 13:30

Jesus didn't spontaneously come back to life; He was just the first, of those who have "fallen asleep", to be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:20).

Hey, adamryan, don't know if we've properly been acquainted yet so welcome! I'm glad you're here, it's nice to meet a theist who's not preaching at us or ranting and raving at us. Smiling Anyway, I feel compelled to ask you, then, where's the proof for these bible quotes? I know what the bible says and obviously you believe it, but can you give me a compelling reason why I should believe it? (By the way I'll tell you what I've told a lot of people: I used to be a Christian).

DrFear wrote:

let us operate under the presumption that Jesus was an actual person. is it possible that he was killed, entombed, and then he somehow resumed living suddenly and was healed of his wounds? no, but let's just for fun say that yes, there is a .00000001% chance that this could happen. is it not waaaaaayyy more possible that he was simply never killed in the first place?

With all due respect to the Good Doctor here, I think he's missed the boat. Let me explain: my case against Jesus' resurrection (well, not MY case but the one that I've accepted) has nothing to do with what are, IMHO, patently LUDICROUS alt-theories such as the "Swoon Theory" etc. Not AS ludicrous (to my way of thinking) as the concept of supernatural resurrection because, after all, I'm an atheist, but like the bible account (and this is key) easily dismissable WITHOUT PROPER EVIDENCE. So, if you tell me that some guy was flagellated, crucified, speared, put in a tomb and then somehow REVIVED on his own, pushed a couple-ton stone out of the way, beat the snot out of a few Roman soldiers armed to the teeth and then sauntered down to town to proclaim himself the Risen Lord, well, you've got some pretty powerful 'splaining to do. AS DOES the resurrection claimant- so sorry for the diversion, but I'm making a salient point: what evidence do you have for the authenticity of the bible account? Obviously I need something a bit more tangible than the biblical account. Other accounts of the resurrection of Christ might be nice, but what I'd REALLY like is evidence that this kind of resurrection is possible. If people died in gruesome fashions (which of course they do all the time) and THEN came BACK after three days, now that'd be something and it would shed light on how Jesus' resurrection was at least plausible (if poorly understood).

Quote:

"Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

-John 19:34

Jesus was beaten, flogged, and crucified; and then His heart was pierced by a spear. It's not, "waaaaaayyy more possible" to survive that.

DrFear wrote:

i'd have to say yeah.

I'd have to say no.

As stated above.

DrFear wrote:

so then logically, given the choice between one explanation of events or the other, i'm gonna go with the more probable, at least somewhat plausible one.

Quote:
You're going to stick to the idea that a man survived being beaten by a brigade of Roman soliders, flogged to the point of near-death, crucified for six hours, and then pierced through the heart with a spear?

How is that at all, "the more probable, at least somewhat plausible" option?

DrFear wrote:

i mean, c'mon, you have to admit the people writing this stuff were a little less knowledgeable, a little more gullible than we are today. it's cool, whatever, they were all old-timey and shit. so they thought the earth was flat, they thought migration cycles of locusts were plagues sent by god, and they thought they saw jesus get killed. it's all good, the guys that came before them thought the sun was god.

Fear out

Quote:
Interesting perspective you have. I don't think it's that rational, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

-adamryan

Let me try this one out, and by all means tell me what you think of it: the idea that the dead can come back to life isn't that far from the idea that the dead have a life AFTER death, and of course this after-life is part and parcel of a soul-belief- the supernatural idea that human beings are not merely flesh and blood but something else. I look at the gospel account and I see a very remarkable MYTH, like the Olympian, Aztec, Hindu etc. myths but a MYTH nonetheless. I'd maybe re-word the Doctor's point a bit by saying that the ancients as such lacked our level of science: to them (and to many of their modern descendants, notably in less developed countries) the world was full of mystery: what caused thunder? What caused the seasons? What caused locust plagues? And, WHY?! And, HOW could these mysterious and potentially threatening or life-giving forces be CONTROLLED?! The world they inhabited was (and again, for many IS) full of gods, ghosts, spirits and powers; requisite rituals and codes of conduct and sacrifices. The idea of the dead coming back was, plain and simple, not that novel. I can elaborate more on any of these points if you feel that my explanation(s) is/are unsatisfactory; I'm an anthro major so this kind of thing is really interesting to me. Anyway, best regards, ~your friendly neighborhood Atheist_Scathe


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

ok. okay. i'm going to stop being a comedian and an asshole for a minute so we can sort this all back out into a single train of thought again. *applause*
and i also give respect, adamryan, to the fact that you're trying your best to debate with evidence in a rational manner here. however, (and i say however a lot)....

1.

adamryan wrote:

If my contention than an omnipotent Being exists, and this Being is powerful enough to create a universe by merely speaking, then I think the idea of resurrecting a body back to life isn't an "impossible point".

if you're going to nitpick someone's sentencing, do try to make sure your own sentences make sense, dear? not only is your grammar nonsensical, but your if/then statement is incomplete. regardless, i am able to get the point. and the point is off topic.
there are hundreds of facets in the theism/atheism debate, so it is important to each singular debate that it stay on course and not run too far into the path of any other(s).
your contention here is not whether or not an omnipotent being exists, it is whether or not the bible passages that depict the resurrection of christ are contradictory. i believe you successfully asserted that in the issue of who showed up to christ's tomb, differing accounts didn't necessarily discredit anything. *applause*

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

here: something that happens without an immediate physical cause would be spontaneous, aye?

Agreed.

DrFear wrote:

even if god were a true entity, theists much like yourself contend god to exist outside the conventions of time, space, and the natural world.

Right; God exists both inside and outside of the space-time domain. However, in no way does this limit His interactions within the "natural world".

DrFear wrote:

not a physical cause, therefore, in natural, physical terms, spontaneous.

Your conclusion lies on flawed logic: it presupposes that God must have to be tangibly physical to interact with/in our physical universe. If God created the universe, He can interact with it; the universe can't limit God. The universe is physical (in a sense); God isn't physical. (It doesn't mean that He is limited to only intangible behavior, though.) So no, any sort of divine intervention (i.e. the resurrection of Christ) within our physical universe isn't spontaneous just because it is a physical action and God isn't; God can interact with physical events.

2. again, you are engaging in semantics with my definition of "spontaneous". i am not saying god is limited in any way, by any thing. by "natural, physical terms", i mean in the terms of a world in which god does not exist. so stop calling my logic flawed.

adamryan wrote:

Does this book provide legitimate evidence for a case that Christ being a "stunt double" is even a possible explanation? If so, please cite some of the material. I've only heard of this book; I haven't read it yet.

nor have i read it in its entirety. as i said, feel free to look it up.
as for the possibility of it, any explanation has a possibility. my point is that any explanation would be more possible than resurrection. and this goes to Atheist_Scathe as well, as i never claimed to have any proof of these things. missed the boat, indeed.
as for your claim, adamryan, that this roman christ-slayer was merely an impartial, professional executioner; what proof do you offer of this story? keep in mind, that quoting bible verses is not proof, as the bible's version of things is exactly what is in question here.

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

and there's also the excommunication three-day standard explanation (which is mostly plausible with regards to the Lazarus resurrection) yada-yada-yada

I couldn't find a link to this "standard explantion". Please provide one for me to review.

terribly sorry, i left that open to misinterpretation. it is not a "standard explanation", three days was a standard minimum sentence of excommunication according to what i was reading. and don't you dare ask for citation again. just enter the frigging book in a search.

oh, one final jab:

adamryan wrote:

I think that the mere fact that these two liquids are mentioned seperately and together provide rather conclusive post-mortem evidence that Jesus died on the cross.

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."
-Acts 5:30

there's a big difference between what crucifixion was and simply hanging somebody on a tree.
p.s. i'll start another thread about MattShizzle's post, if he doesn't wanna. just not here. and not right now.

Fear out

Fear is the mindkiller.


HeliosOfTheSun
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

Quote:
spentley wrote:

Same God that said the world was created 6000 years ago?

Adamryan worte:

Yep.

spentley wrote:

Same God that said life came from 2 humans, Adam and Eve?

Adamryan wrote:

Yep.

Wow, I can see we have a smart one. Okay, here's a question. Mr. Richard Leaky (Human Anthro.) found Lucy. I could start off with the evoultion, but Im not, Lucky's bones dated beyond 6,000 years, so are Adam and Eve older than 6,000 years ago? Yea, you might want to go ahead and say your wrong.

In the book of Daniel, he speaks of the world being flat. Wait... Om my goodness, the world's flat?!? Those damn astronaunts have been lying to us all along, they must be working for Satan huh? I think to be allowed into this forum, you need a BRAIN which you dont have since you think the world is 6,000 year old. Adamryan.. I think you need to see a doctor.

Quote:
I wonder, not how your thought process works, but how you think that you made a point.

Laughing out loud You theists make me laugh! You try to say he cant prove a point, coming from an irrational person like you. Would you like to explain to me how 8 billion people (currently living) came from 2 people? And without forming any mental disorders along the way? And how these two people migrated to America from the Euprhates River? I suppose when their child had kids with each other they cme out perfectly okay... :roll: And moved to North America through the Being Strait 14,000 years before the world was created... Hm. That might be a problem.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

It's amazing how Christians will twist things to make what the Bible says not look so absurd. Dan Barker in Losing Faith in Faith explained how Christians would try to explain if the Bible said "This square is a circle":

"It could mean a circle of squares, or a square of circles. Or in the original language the word 'square' was used to refer to any geometric object. Or a circle is functioning in place of a square temporarily. Or yesterday there was a square here, today it's a circle. Or, the circle is 'square' meaning odd or corny - it's an elipse, yeah, that's what it is. Or the word 'circle' is used in a general sense of 'circling around', which a square can do. Or the circle was cut from a square - the word 'is' means 'is from.' Or the word 'square' doesn't really belong in this sentence - it goes chronologically with the last sentence. Or the term 'square' is symbolic, like the '4 corners of the Earth.' Or the word 'circle' is used loosely like 'a circle of friends.' A square circle is an old fashioned group of friends. Or, it's a deep mystery that only God comprehends and we will understand it all someday in heaven.

Laughing out loud

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


spentley
Posts: 64
Joined: 2006-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

adamryan wrote:
adamryan wrote:

spentley wrote:

Same God that said the world was created 6000 years ago?

Yep.

spentley wrote:

Same God that said life came from 2 humans, Adam and Eve?

Yep.

spentley wrote:

If someone wants to continue that list giver. I think my point is made enough.

Your first sentence makes no sense and your second sentence mentions a point; which point? You didn't make a point. All you did was ask (cynically rhetorical or not) two questions.

spentley wrote:

So if God was wrong about this.. how do you honestly expect me to believe anything to do with this god? Let alone, he defied all logic and installed life in a dead human body.

Provide evidence about what God was wrong about, and then maybe you'll make sense.

Eye-wink

Sorry If was unclear.

I just don't understand, your belief, if you know that God, either lied, or was wrong saying he made the world in 7 days... or that life was created through Adam and Eve.

We know that the world is older than 6000 years, so this is wrong. Which makes God wrong. Right?

Fossils, are good evidence here.

We know that humans developed through evolution. So, the story of Adam and Even is wrong. So, here again.. God either lied or is wrong.

Lots of other people can support the evidence of evolution a lot better than I can.. but its a fact.

So, my question to you is. How can an omnipotent being be wrong?

look, im not trying to be smarter than you. I really want to know what makes a person, still believe in an entity that you know is wrong..

my point is actually quite simple - I don't get it.

I get atheism though!

... pretty much anything else that makes sense too.

God is the omnimax creator by definition of major religions. If there is evidence that the religion is incorrect about the nature of reality, then there is evidence that the God the religion defines does not exist.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

DrFear wrote:

if you're going to nitpick someone's sentencing, do try to make sure your own sentences make sense, dear?

I try.

DrFear wrote:

not only is your grammar nonsensical, but your if/then statement is incomplete.

Thank you for pointing out my errors. I typoed (if that can even be considered a verb) "than", instead of "that", and I forgot to put "is true" after the statement, "If my contention that an omnipotent Being exists..." Thank you for the amelioration.

DrFear wrote:

regardless, i am able to get the point. and the point is off topic.

No, it's not. I believe that God is powerful enough to resurrect someone from death. This "spontaneity" you're talking about makes it seem like you think it will limit or somehow prevent God from being able to do this. It's right on topic, thank-you-very-much. *takes all of the applause from DrFear*

DrFear wrote:

there are hundreds of facets in the theism/atheism debate, so it is important to each singular debate that it stay on course and not run too far into the path of any other(s).

Agreed. Good thing I didn't do that.

DrFear wrote:

Your contention here is not whether or not an omnipotent being exists, it is whether or not the bible passages that depict the resurrection of christ are contradictory.

Even though I typoed and left out two words, I'm not seeing how you read my statement as an affirmation that God exists. I said,

adamryan wrote:

If my contention than an omnipotent Being exists, and this Being is powerful enough to create a universe by merely speaking, then I think the idea of resurrecting a body back to life isn't an "impossible point".

Focus on the last part:

adamryan wrote:

"...then I think the idea of resurrecting a body back to life isn't an "impossible point".

I wasn't arguing the case for the existence of God; I was making a statement about God's omnipotence.

DrFear wrote:

i believe you successfully asserted that in the issue of who showed up to christ's tomb, differing accounts didn't necessarily discredit anything. *applause*

Correct. I'm not sure why you'd applaud yourself for that, but correct, nonetheless.

DrFear wrote:

2. again, you are engaging in semantics with my definition of "spontaneous".

No, I'm not. See above.

DrFear wrote:

i am not saying god is limited in any way, by any thing. by "natural, physical terms", i mean in the terms of a world in which god does not exist. so stop calling my logic flawed.

Right. And we agreed earlier (well, actually, I promised earlier) that if i ever met someone who thought naturalistically a resurrection was possible, I'd send them to you. If you want me to agree with you that a resurrection from death, on "natural, physical terms", then I will again: I agree.

But that's not what was being said. You said,

DrFear wrote:

even if god were a true entity, theists much like yourself contend god to exist outside the conventions of time, space, and the natural world.

and then concluded,

DrFear wrote:

not a physical cause, therefore, in natural, physical terms, spontaneous.

That's a gigantic jump away from rationality; the idea that since God exists "outside the conventions of time, space, and the natural world.", He is therefore somehow unable to interact with it. It's also the reason why I used (though I erred in some of my words) the statement of God's omnipotence.

DrFear wrote:

nor have i read it in its entirety. as i said, feel free to look it up.

I look forward to doing so.

DrFear wrote:

as for the possibility of it, any explanation has a possibility. my point is that any explanation would be more possible than resurrection.

Well of course, atheistically, any explanation is more possible than the resurrection. But that's not what you're saying, exactly, verbatim, and you can't argue my point by simply just reaffirming yours. You're stating dogmatically that the atheistic perspective on the possible explanations of the resurrection account is the only rational side of options. You're being an atheist preacher. Our foundational thought processes are different. Mine is open to the possibility of God interacting in an event, while yours isn't. If we're going to discuss the resurrection account any further, we need to pass these basic steps of understanding our viewpoints.

DrFear wrote:

and this goes to Atheist_Scathe as well, as i never claimed to have any proof of these things. missed the boat, indeed.

If there's no proof of the event, then why even mention it as a possibility? Wouldn't mentioning a possibility that had some evidence make a stronger case? Unless you're merely suggesting alternatives that could be a possible (possible in the sense that they could have happened; not that there is evidence which can verify it) explanation, I don't see why you'd suggest that.

DrFear wrote:

as for your claim, adamryan, that this roman christ-slayer was merely an impartial, professional executioner; what proof do you offer of this story? keep in mind, that quoting bible verses is not proof, as the bible's version of things is exactly what is in question here.

The best proof I'd say would be the countenance of the Roman soldiers during, while, and after the crucifixion. But since you've limited what my answer can be, I suppose my entire response will be held in the pugatory of your rubric; that is, until you consider maybe giving my argument a little amnesty.

DrFear wrote:

terribly sorry, i left that open to misinterpretation. it is not a "standard explanation", three days was a standard minimum sentence of excommunication according to what i was reading.

Excommunication from what?

DrFear wrote:

and don't you dare ask for citation again. just enter the frigging book in a search.

I did do a search. I typed in "excommunication three-day standard explanation". I guess that was a fault on both our parts; you, because you "left that open to misinterpretation", and me because I haven't read the book yet.

DrFear wrote:

oh, one final jab:

adamryan wrote:

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."
-Acts 5:30

there's a big difference between what crucifixion was and simply hanging somebody on a tree.

Clarity: http://www.solagroup.org/articles/understandingthebible/utb_0009.html

DrFear wrote:

p.s. i'll start another thread about MattShizzle's post, if he doesn't wanna.

I look forward to it.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Atheist_Scathe
Posts: 69
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

KCahill wrote:
Quote:
spentley wrote:

Same God that said the world was created 6000 years ago?

Adamryan worte:

Yep.

spentley wrote:

Same God that said life came from 2 humans, Adam and Eve?

Adamryan wrote:

Yep.

Quote:
Wow, I can see we have a smart one. Okay, here's a question. Mr. Richard Leaky (Human Anthro.) found Lucy.

Actually that was Donald Johanson. Not to nitpick but thought I'd mention it, after all anthro is my major.

Quote:
I could start off with the evoultion, but Im not, Lucky's bones dated beyond 6,000 years, so are Adam and Eve older than 6,000 years ago? Yea, you might want to go ahead and say your wrong.

Lucy was dated to ~3 million years ago, give or take. There is substantial morphological evidence from a highly continuous fossil record for a human ancestry in Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy's species. There are many other discoveries as well that are worth mentioning here. Your point is valid, but you might also mention that the earth has been reliably dated to ~4.55 billion years of age.

I don't think you're going to get through on this one, though, if my experiences with YECs are anything to judge- adamryan, I don't mean to misjudge you but I'm assuming you're YEC, correct?

Quote:
In the book of Daniel, he speaks of the world being flat. Wait... Om my goodness, the world's flat?!? Those damn astronaunts have been lying to us all along, they must be working for Satan huh? I think to be allowed into this forum, you need a BRAIN which you dont have since you think the world is 6,000 year old. Adamryan.. I think you need to see a doctor.

I wouldn't be quite this vitriolic, he's entitled to his opinions however erroneous- and as long as he's not thrusting them on us I don't think we have the right to castigate him in an acerbic manner, only to critique him. I try to save the vitriol for douche bags like "meme" and "Roark" who REALLY deserve it.

Quote:
I wonder, not how your thought process works, but how you think that you made a point.

Quote:
:lol: You theists make me laugh! You try to say he cant prove a point, coming from an irrational person like you. Would you like to explain to me how 8 billion people (currently living) came from 2 people? And without forming any mental disorders along the way?

goddidit...

Quote:
And how these two people migrated to America from the Euprhates River? I suppose when their child had kids with each other they cme out perfectly okay... :roll: And moved to North America through the Being Strait 14,000 years before the world was created... Hm. That might be a problem.

As utterly frustrating as it is to you and I that there are still people in these United States who believe this nonsense (and it is utter drivel), you're going about this the wrong way. The more you hit it over the head, the deeper you drive the nail, so to speak. Those that are truly open minded will come to the truth not by being berated but by seeking it and learning where they can. People who hold the YEC position tend to be sincerely, albeit SEVERELY, deluded. And unfortunately, theirs is a position that is so airtight that in many cases no amount of reason seems sufficient to pierce the shield of ignorance which is labeled FAITH.

Anyways, just an observation or two of mine.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

Well to begin with, I'd like to thank you for such a warm welcoming.

And yes, something about me: I don't preach Jesus down people's throats.
In fact, to be completely honest, I don't even like preaching; at all.
By "preaching", I mean the "evangelizing" tactics used by modern Christians to try to convert people to Christianity. I am a skeptical rationalist at heart (I was before I became a Christian, I am now, and if i ever leave Christianity, I will continue to be one.), and I can't stand the thought of accepting something, (much less, attaching any sort of religious devotion or obedience) without any evidence.

the only sort of "preaching" I endorse is the sort of "the evidence speaks for itself" type of preaching.

I would rather reason with someone for an hour, than quote Bible verses to them for a minute.

Most "christians" dont understand the concept of reasoning.

They're so brainwashed by the rigorous dogma of, "Take it on faith!", or "Just believe.", etc etc, that they start to nullify the true meaning of what faith in God really is.

God isn't some sadistic tyrant who put us here on this earth, gave us no evidence of His existence, and yet demands our complete and undivided obedience to Him.

God is a "gentleman", and doesn't force us to do anything; if we don't want to consider any of the evidence for His existence, fine; but we must accept that in the end, it won't be the evidence for the existence of He that we will face, but ultimately, it will be God Himself.

on to your statements:

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

Anyway, I feel compelled to ask you, then, where's the proof for these bible quotes?

Which ones in particular? The one's I'm discussing now, about the resurrection?

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

...can you give me a compelling reason why I should believe it? (By the way I'll tell you what I've told a lot of people: I used to be a Christian).

Since your previous statement I left open for you to respond, I'll answer after you do so.

And I'll tell you something: I used to be an atheist.

What familar tables we sit and turn at, my dear Atheist_Scathe. =]

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

if you tell me that some guy was flagellated, crucified, speared, put in a tomb and then somehow REVIVED on his own, pushed a couple-ton stone out of the way, beat the snot out of a few Roman soldiers armed to the teeth and then sauntered down to town to proclaim himself the Risen Lord, well, you've got some pretty powerful 'splaining to do.

Well said. =]

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

What evidence do you have for the authenticity of the bible account? Obviously I need something a bit more tangible than the biblical account.

Tangible, or supplemental?

I don't have anything tangible that I can put in your hand and say, "See? Look at it. Therefore, Jesus resurrected from the dead."; in fact, I don't think there exists anything like that at all (unless you would argue that the Bible could do that (which I wouldn't); merely holding the Bible does nothing; you have to read it, so it wouldn't count).

But I do know of a few supplemental materials I can provide that might help to make my contention more possible in your mind.

To begin with, I'd suggest William Lane Craig's essay, titled Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which can be found here:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

Other accounts of the resurrection of Christ might be nice, but what I'd REALLY like is evidence that this kind of resurrection is possible. If people died in gruesome fashions (which of course they do all the time) and THEN came BACK after three days, now that'd be something and it would shed light on how Jesus' resurrection was at least plausible (if poorly understood).

If people randomly resurrected from the dead, what would make Christ's resurrection any better than the lay persons?

And you want God to resurrect another person?

He will; in fact, He's going to resurrect every human who's ever lived, back from the dead; unfortunately, by the time you see this happen, it'll be too late to change your mind.

"Man is destined to die once; and after that, face judgment." -Hebrews 9:27

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

Let me try this one out, and by all means tell me what you think of it: the idea that the dead can come back to life isn't that far from the idea that the dead have a life AFTER death

Not immediately after death; those who have died are "asleep" spiritually. When Jesus gives them their "wake up call", so to speak, they then will have life after death. Then; not now. I like your thinking, though. Great analysis. Nobody's ever contrasted those two, while talking about Christ's resurrection, to me before.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

and of course this after-life is part and parcel of a soul-belief- the supernatural idea that human beings are not merely flesh and blood but something else.

Again, I'd say that the idea of life after death (i.e. the immortality of the sould), isn't exactly a biblical teaching.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

I look at the gospel account and I see a very remarkable MYTH, like the Olympian, Aztec, Hindu etc. myths but a MYTH nonetheless.

You see myth; I see the writings of guys who thought they were just following some new religious zealot wacko (see Mark 3: 21), saw Him executed for His teachings, saw Him days later after the execution, and then wrote about what happened after they thought to themselves, "Whoa. That dude wasn't kidding when He said, 'I am gonna be betrayed, condemned, and killed, and then I'll see you guys three days later.' (paraphrase mine; Mark 10:33-34)

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

I'd maybe re-word the Doctor's point a bit by saying that the ancients as such lacked our level of science: to them (and to many of their modern descendants, notably in less developed countries) the world was full of mystery: what caused thunder? What caused the seasons? What caused locust plagues? And, WHY?! And, HOW could these mysterious and potentially threatening or life-giving forces be CONTROLLED?! The world they inhabited was (and again, for many IS) full of gods, ghosts, spirits and powers; requisite rituals and codes of conduct and sacrifices. The idea of the dead coming back was, plain and simple, not that novel. I can elaborate more on any of these points if you feel that my explanation(s) is/are unsatisfactory; I'm an anthro major so this kind of thing is really interesting to me. Anyway, best regards, ~your friendly neighborhood Atheist_Scathe

That was a great elaboration on what DrFear had written.

I appreciate your perspective, and like the way you write. Though I think there are drastically differing claims from what the Bible contains when concerning natural events (including thunder, seasonal changes, and locust plagues) when compared to other, superstitious cultures, I agree with you that there do seem to be some similarity; and if we're not careful, we might dismiss the credibility of the Bible by accidentally (and unjustifiably) ignorantly consociating the *two.

["two" in the sense of Biblical and non-biblical claims; not numerically listing cultures]

Interesting things you have to say here, Atheist_Scathe. I like your style.
I look forward to further discussing things with you.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

Well to begin with, I'd like to thank you for such a warm welcoming.

And yes, something about me: I don't preach Jesus down people's throats.
In fact, to be completely honest, I don't even like preaching; at all.
By "preaching", I mean the "evangelizing" tactics used by modern Christians to try to convert people to Christianity. I am a skeptical rationalist at heart (I was before I became a Christian, I am now, and if i ever leave Christianity, I will continue to be one.), and I can't stand the thought of accepting something, (much less, attaching any sort of religious devotion or obedience) without any evidence.

the only sort of "preaching" I endorse is the sort of "the evidence speaks for itself" type of preaching.

I would rather reason with someone for an hour, than quote Bible verses to them for a minute.

Most "christians" dont understand the concept of reasoning.

They're so brainwashed by the rigorous dogma of, "Take it on faith!", or "Just believe.", etc etc, that they start to nullify the true meaning of what faith in God really is.

God isn't some sadistic tyrant who put us here on this earth, gave us no evidence of His existence, and yet demands our complete and undivided obedience to Him.

God is a "gentleman", and doesn't force us to do anything; if we don't want to consider any of the evidence for His existence, fine; but we must accept that in the end, it won't be the evidence for the existence of He that we will face, but ultimately, it will be God Himself.

on to your statements:

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

Anyway, I feel compelled to ask you, then, where's the proof for these bible quotes?

Which ones in particular? The one's I'm discussing now, about the resurrection?

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

...can you give me a compelling reason why I should believe it? (By the way I'll tell you what I've told a lot of people: I used to be a Christian).

Since your previous statement I left open for you to respond, I'll answer after you do so.

And I'll tell you something: I used to be an atheist.

What familar tables we sit and turn at, my dear Atheist_Scathe. =]

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

if you tell me that some guy was flagellated, crucified, speared, put in a tomb and then somehow REVIVED on his own, pushed a couple-ton stone out of the way, beat the snot out of a few Roman soldiers armed to the teeth and then sauntered down to town to proclaim himself the Risen Lord, well, you've got some pretty powerful 'splaining to do.

Well said. =]

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

What evidence do you have for the authenticity of the bible account? Obviously I need something a bit more tangible than the biblical account.

Tangible, or supplemental?

I don't have anything tangible that I can put in your hand and say, "See? Look at it. Therefore, Jesus resurrected from the dead."; in fact, I don't think there exists anything like that at all (unless you would argue that the Bible could do that (which I wouldn't); merely holding the Bible does nothing; you have to read it, so it wouldn't count).

But I do know of a few supplemental materials I can provide that might help to make my contention more possible in your mind.

To begin with, I'd suggest William Lane Craig's essay,
Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,

which can be found here:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

Other accounts of the resurrection of Christ might be nice, but what I'd REALLY like is evidence that this kind of resurrection is possible. If people died in gruesome fashions (which of course they do all the time) and THEN came BACK after three days, now that'd be something and it would shed light on how Jesus' resurrection was at least plausible (if poorly understood).

If people randomly resurrected from the dead, what would make Christ's resurrection any better than the lay persons?

And you want God to resurrect another person?

He will; in fact, He's going to resurrect every human who's ever lived, back from the dead; unfortunately, by the time you see this happen, it'll be too late to change your mind.

"Man is destined to die once; and after that, face judgment." -Hebrews 9:27

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

Let me try this one out, and by all means tell me what you think of it: the idea that the dead can come back to life isn't that far from the idea that the dead have a life AFTER death

Not immediately after death; those who have died are "asleep" spiritually. When Jesus gives them their "wake up call", so to speak, they then will have life after death. Then; not now. I like your thinking, though. Great analysis. Nobody's ever contrasted those two, while talking about Christ's resurrection, to me before.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

and of course this after-life is part and parcel of a soul-belief- the supernatural idea that human beings are not merely flesh and blood but something else.

Again, I'd say that the idea of life after death (i.e. the immortality of the sould), isn't exactly a biblical teaching.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

I look at the gospel account and I see a very remarkable MYTH, like the Olympian, Aztec, Hindu etc. myths but a MYTH nonetheless.

You see myth; I see the writings of guys who thought they were just following some new religious zealot wacko (see Mark 3: 21), saw Him executed for His teachings, saw Him days later after the execution, and then wrote about what happened after they thought to themselves, "Whoa. That dude wasn't kidding when He said, 'I am gonna be betrayed, condemned, and killed, and then I'll see you guys three days later.' (paraphrase mine; Mark 10:33-34)

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

I'd maybe re-word the Doctor's point a bit by saying that the ancients as such lacked our level of science: to them (and to many of their modern descendants, notably in less developed countries) the world was full of mystery: what caused thunder? What caused the seasons? What caused locust plagues? And, WHY?! And, HOW could these mysterious and potentially threatening or life-giving forces be CONTROLLED?! The world they inhabited was (and again, for many IS) full of gods, ghosts, spirits and powers; requisite rituals and codes of conduct and sacrifices. The idea of the dead coming back was, plain and simple, not that novel. I can elaborate more on any of these points if you feel that my explanation(s) is/are unsatisfactory; I'm an anthro major so this kind of thing is really interesting to me. Anyway, best regards, ~your friendly neighborhood Atheist_Scathe

That was a great elaboration on what DrFear had written.

I appreciate your perspective, and like the way you write. Though I think there are drastically differing claims from what the Bible contains when concerning natural events (including thunder, seasonal changes, and locust plagues) when compared to other, superstitious cultures, I agree with you that there do seem to be some similarity; and if we're not careful, we might dismiss the credibility of the Bible by accidentally (and unjustifiably) ignorantly consociating the *two.

["two" in the sense of Biblical and non-biblical claims; not numerically listing cultures]

Interesting things you have to say here, Atheist_Scathe. I like your style.
I look forward to further discussing things with you.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


spentley
Posts: 64
Joined: 2006-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

adamryan wrote:
but ultimately, it will be God Himself.

not the god that made the world 6,000 years ago. :twisted:

go prey

God is the omnimax creator by definition of major religions. If there is evidence that the religion is incorrect about the nature of reality, then there is evidence that the God the religion defines does not exist.


Atheist_Scathe
Posts: 69
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

Quote:
Well to begin with, I'd like to thank you for such a warm welcoming.

And yes, something about me: I don't preach Jesus down people's throats.
In fact, to be completely honest, I don't even like preaching; at all.
By "preaching", I mean the "evangelizing" tactics used by modern Christians to try to convert people to Christianity. I am a skeptical rationalist at heart (I was before I became a Christian, I am now, and if i ever leave Christianity, I will continue to be one.), and I can't stand the thought of accepting something, (much less, attaching any sort of religious devotion or obedience) without any evidence.

the only sort of "preaching" I endorse is the sort of "the evidence speaks for itself" type of preaching.

I would rather reason with someone for an hour, than quote Bible verses to them for a minute.

Most "christians" dont understand the concept of reasoning.

They're so brainwashed by the rigorous dogma of, "Take it on faith!", or "Just believe.", etc etc, that they start to nullify the true meaning of what faith in God really is.

Well awesome, I'm glad we can have such a great discussion! It's really helped me to overcome a lot of the negative biases that I've had against Christianity in particular and religious/faith positions in general, talking to Christians such as yourself. I've noticed in myself and others that there's a real tendency for atheists to be JUST as "fundy" and "dogmatic" and intolerant as some Christians- often the ones that I/we/they were/are ragging on the MOST. So to be totally fair I think this kind of dogmatism isn't so much endemic to Christianity or theism but rather to the human condition.

Quote:
God isn't some sadistic tyrant who put us here on this earth, gave us no evidence of His existence, and yet demands our complete and undivided obedience to Him.

God is a "gentleman", and doesn't force us to do anything; if we don't want to consider any of the evidence for His existence, fine; but we must accept that in the end, it won't be the evidence for the existence of He that we will face, but ultimately, it will be God Himself.

Well, that sounds great but I can't help feeling that you're leaving some parts of the bible unaddressed. I don't mean to be presumptuous but the god you're describing here seems a LOT better than the one I've learned about in the bible, and by that I mean the god who casts into hell, sends plagues to punish people and so forth. I'm truly curious as to your statements here and although we have different beliefs I'd really like to hear more about the basis for these statements of belief.

Quote:
on to your statements:

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

Anyway, I feel compelled to ask you, then, where's the proof for these bible quotes?

Which ones in particular? The one's I'm discussing now, about the resurrection?

Yes, those. It seems to me that such things really are matters of faith: either you have it or you don't. Hope that doesn't sound too tautological but there ya go. What I mean to say is that the resurrection is, well, a pretty remarkable claim and for me to believe it I'd need some pretty remarkable evidence.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

...can you give me a compelling reason why I should believe it? (By the way I'll tell you what I've told a lot of people: I used to be a Christian).

Quote:
Since your previous statement I left open for you to respond, I'll answer after you do so.

And I'll tell you something: I used to be an atheist.

What familar tables we sit and turn at, my dear Atheist_Scathe. =]

Hey, fair enough. Out of curiosity, and not to pry: what lead you to the change? I thought I'd mention mine, not as a red herring or anything, but just as a side note that I did USE to believe in it and have a basic familiarity with the story and some of the arguments for it as well as against it.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

if you tell me that some guy was flagellated, crucified, speared, put in a tomb and then somehow REVIVED on his own, pushed a couple-ton stone out of the way, beat the snot out of a few Roman soldiers armed to the teeth and then sauntered down to town to proclaim himself the Risen Lord, well, you've got some pretty powerful 'splaining to do.

Quote:
Well said. =]

Right on!

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

What evidence do you have for the authenticity of the bible account? Obviously I need something a bit more tangible than the biblical account.

Quote:
Tangible, or supplemental?

I don't have anything tangible that I can put in your hand and say, "See? Look at it. Therefore, Jesus resurrected from the dead."; in fact, I don't think there exists anything like that at all (unless you would argue that the Bible could do that (which I wouldn't); merely holding the Bible does nothing; you have to read it, so it wouldn't count).

But I do know of a few supplemental materials I can provide that might help to make my contention more possible in your mind.

To begin with, I'd suggest William Lane Craig's essay,
Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,

which can be found here:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

Okay, well thanks and I'll definitely try and look into that but I suppose what I REALLY mean is hard, testable, empirical evidence that such a thing is even possible. People coming back from the dead is the stuff of myth, lore, and vampire movies, not good historical scholarship or scientific study. I've found in general that a lot of these apologists argue from the basis of anecdote, personal incredulity, and begging the question, generally in the vein that Christianity could NOT have arisen as such WITHOUT a resurrected savior... but I'll try to forestall passing judgment before I look at the essay.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

Other accounts of the resurrection of Christ might be nice, but what I'd REALLY like is evidence that this kind of resurrection is possible. If people died in gruesome fashions (which of course they do all the time) and THEN came BACK after three days, now that'd be something and it would shed light on how Jesus' resurrection was at least plausible (if poorly understood).

Quote:
If people randomly resurrected from the dead, what would make Christ's resurrection any better than the lay persons?

Faith, perhaps? And what does it really matter for the purposes of this discussion? We want to establish the feasibility of the resurrection, not of necessity its purported metaphysical import.

Quote:
And you want God to resurrect another person?

The provenance of the phenomenon need not be known, only its saliency to the topic. So even if I didn't know HOW people resurrected, only THAT they resurrected on a somewhat consistent basis (after being medically dead for a long time rather than simply revived), then that would go a LONG way toward the credibility of the gospel account: well, at least I'd have a certifiable, discernable basis for the story in an actual phenomenon.

Quote:
He will; in fact, He's going to resurrect every human who's ever lived, back from the dead; unfortunately, by the time you see this happen, it'll be too late to change your mind.

Well, with all due respect I think I'll take my chances on reason and logic rather than back Pascal's Wager's "dark horse". No, not even take my chances: do the only thing that makes any sense. Do you see the disconnect here? This is YOUR belief but it's not mine, so I can't help but call cop-out. There's really no reason for me to believe in resurrection without it being a documented phenomenon, and the only promise of documentation you can offer me is this purported future event.

Quote:
"Man is destined to die once; and after that, face judgment." -Hebrews 9:27

I find it interesting how Christianity has such ready recourse to this concept of judgment. In one stroke you here hamstring rational inquiry both ethical and empirical into the nature of this claim while providing a powerful ideological weapon for your religion.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

Let me try this one out, and by all means tell me what you think of it: the idea that the dead can come back to life isn't that far from the idea that the dead have a life AFTER death

Quote:
Not immediately after death; those who have died are "asleep" spiritually. When Jesus gives them their "wake up call", so to speak, they then will have life after death. Then; not now. I like your thinking, though. Great analysis. Nobody's ever contrasted those two, while talking about Christ's resurrection, to me before.

Okay, fair enough, you see what I'm doing here then. Resurrection is inseparable from soul-belief.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

and of course this after-life is part and parcel of a soul-belief- the supernatural idea that human beings are not merely flesh and blood but something else.

Quote:
Again, I'd say that the idea of life after death (i.e. the immortality of the sould), isn't exactly a biblical teaching.

Afterlife, though, in whatever form you choose to accept. The idea that the person continues to exist or is reconstituted to exist after death (at least at some point).

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

I look at the gospel account and I see a very remarkable MYTH, like the Olympian, Aztec, Hindu etc. myths but a MYTH nonetheless.

Quote:
You see myth; I see the writings of guys who thought they were just following some new religious zealot wacko (see Mark 3: 21), saw Him executed for His teachings, saw Him days later after the execution, and then wrote about what happened after they thought to themselves, "Whoa. That dude wasn't kidding when He said, 'I am gonna be betrayed, condemned, and killed, and then I'll see you guys three days later.' (paraphrase mine; Mark 10:33-34)

Again, we're getting these stories without reliable verification, and they contain the fantastic flights of myth. Insofar as they deal in the supernatural and hagiographic I'm content to call the gospels myth.

Atheist_Scathe wrote:

I'd maybe re-word the Doctor's point a bit by saying that the ancients as such lacked our level of science: to them (and to many of their modern descendants, notably in less developed countries) the world was full of mystery: what caused thunder? What caused the seasons? What caused locust plagues? And, WHY?! And, HOW could these mysterious and potentially threatening or life-giving forces be CONTROLLED?! The world they inhabited was (and again, for many IS) full of gods, ghosts, spirits and powers; requisite rituals and codes of conduct and sacrifices. The idea of the dead coming back was, plain and simple, not that novel. I can elaborate more on any of these points if you feel that my explanation(s) is/are unsatisfactory; I'm an anthro major so this kind of thing is really interesting to me. Anyway, best regards, ~your friendly neighborhood Atheist_Scathe

Quote:
That was a great elaboration on what DrFear had written.

I appreciate your perspective, and like the way you write. Though I think there are drastically differing claims from what the Bible contains when concerning natural events (including thunder, seasonal changes, and locust plagues) when compared to other, superstitious cultures, I agree with you that there do seem to be some similarity; and if we're not careful, we might dismiss the credibility of the Bible by accidentally (and unjustifiably) ignorantly consociating the *two.

["two" in the sense of Biblical and non-biblical claims; not numerically listing cultures]

Interesting things you have to say here, Atheist_Scathe. I like your style.
I look forward to further discussing things with you.

-adamryan

I'm not so sure that the bible is as different as you think it is: is not the biblical deity seen as sovereign over his creation, ordaining its seasons and cycles, and certainly sending his fair share of natural disasters as well as natural benisons? Not saying there aren't disconnects between Judeo-Christianity and say, Greco-Roman religion (in fact, there are MANY), but the basic point made first by the Doctor and then re-stated by me (it is something that I have thought much and remarked often upon) stands in essence. At any rate, I thank you for a cordial and stimulating conversation and the prospects of its continuance. Sincerely, ~Atheist_Scathe


HeliosOfTheSun
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

Actually that was Donald Johanson. Not to nitpick but thought I'd mention it, after all anthro is my major.

Quote:

My bad, Mr. Leaky found Australopithecus boisei, I mistaken it for Australopithecus afarensis anyway my point was to say these were dated back 3 million years ago. A few million years passed the 10, 000 year old Earth mark.


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

adamryan wrote:

And yes, something about me: I don't preach Jesus down people's throats.

perhaps not, but there are many who do, to the point that much of what we are forced to abide as law is based on theists forcing religious belief on an entire nation. this is why we strive for an impartial, non-theist society.

Quote:

the only sort of "preaching" I endorse is the sort of "the evidence speaks for itself" type of preaching.

no evidence speaks for itself. evidence speaks only for or against a theory or accusation. it is this kind of flawed logic that leads to the leaps of faith and assumption we see in theism.

Quote:

I would rather reason with someone for an hour, than quote Bible verses to them for a minute.

funny, coming from someone who did a good deal of biblical quotation as part of supposedly rational debate. the bible is what is in question here, it can't serve to prove itself true in this case.

Quote:

God isn't some sadistic tyrant who put us here on this earth, gave us no evidence of His existence, and yet demands our complete and undivided obedience to Him.

God is a "gentleman", and doesn't force us to do anything;

oh, he's a gentleman, is he? do you know him? does he call you at home? every day i'm forced to do or not do things in the name of god. is this man's fault for misinterpreting god? well then if he's such a gentleman, why does he allow me and my fellows to be mistreated?

Quote:

...if we don't want to consider any of the evidence for His existence, fine; but we must accept that in the end, it won't be the evidence for the existence of He that we will face, but ultimately, it will be God Himself.

that sounds a lot like preaching to me. not only that, it sounds like a veiled threat. very gentlemanly.

adamryan wrote:

I don't have anything tangible that I can put in your hand and say, "See? Look at it. Therefore, Jesus resurrected from the dead."; in fact, I don't think there exists anything like that at all (unless you would argue that the Bible could do that (which I wouldn't); merely holding the Bible does nothing; you have to read it, so it wouldn't count).

i don't think i have to say anything in order for that one to ring home.

Quote:

If people randomly resurrected from the dead, what would make Christ's resurrection any better than the lay persons?

what you're saying here is that people would get desensitized to the wonderment of resurrection. this equates it with a magic act, perpetrated by god in order to show people he existed and make them believe. but it is a popular theist contention when asked why god doesn't show himself, or at least show us he exists, that 'god doesn't need to prove anything. you just have to have faith.' so how come he needed to prove it back then, and not now?

Quote:

And you want God to resurrect another person?

hell yeah! do i get to pick?

adamryan wrote:

He will; in fact, He's going to resurrect every human who's ever lived, back from the dead; unfortunately, by the time you see this happen, it'll be too late to change your mind.

"Man is destined to die once; and after that, face judgment." -Hebrews 9:27

more preaching?

Quote:

You see myth; I see the writings of guys who thought they were just following some new religious zealot wacko

no, they didn't think he was a wacko, he was a wacko. why would they follow him if they thought he was a wacko? they were followers of what they thought was the real deal, just like anyone who's ever been part of a cult. and that's what the christians were to the rest of the world in that day: a cult.

which brings me to your 'supplementation', Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

First, the essay is just as religiously biased as any other out there, and none of the so-called historians it offers up are biased in any other way except towards the religious. (note: the rabbis who studied the so-called biblical code consider themselves historians as well) Sherwin-White's observation of legendary accumulation is clearly not tested against real life, because in any observation of the contemporary, things that happened five years ago have acheived legendary status in most people's minds. memories mutate quickly and easily into tales, not over generations.

Secondly, a good majority of the evidence presented is based entirely on supposition of what people who lived thousands of years ago might have been thinking. this was the most frustrating aspect of reading it. i defy you to tell me what anybody living now is thinking without them telling you directly. thousands. years. how 'bout it.

Thirdly, Paul has been widely discredited from even having evidence of Christ's existence, much less individual things that happened to him and/or around him. see elsewhere on the board, it's hard to miss.

i'll stop numbering things, as they are numbering many at this point...
the empty tomb, gross leap of faith, and the essay even points this out, for some reason: "The phrase "on the third day" probably points to the discovery of the empty tomb. Very briefly summarized, the point is that since no one actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, how did Christians come to date it "on the third day?""
i will point out the word probably, appearing numerous times in the essay.
a more poignant question would be "since no one actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, how did Christians come up with such an explanation?" and this paper's answer is, of course, "through supposition".

"If one denies that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he must explain the disciples' belief that he did rise either in terms of Jewish influences or in terms of Christian influences. Now clearly, it can't be the result of Christian influences, for at that time there wasn't any Christianity yet!"-quote

there wasn't christianity, but there was christ, who was claiming things, and people believed him. the beginnings of christianity are only attributed to the resurrection by christians. in reality, it was a group of folk who followed a man who said things, and he wasn't the first man to say things that got people believing, and he wasn't the last. hell, Muhammad did it 600 years later, and he didn't perform any miracles, he just took a bunch of books from the torah, and a few gospels, wrote the Qur'an, said it was the true word of god (the same exact god jews and christians believe in), rejected christ and the assumption that Palestine was promised by god to Isaac's people (the israelites), and look how devoutly the muslims believe in it.
this is the problem with christianity. it exists in a bubble where the entire world just began revolving around jesus and christianity, and the things that didn't revolve around christianity went on despite it, when in reality, things that didn't revolve around christianity went on regardless of it.

that's all i'm going to say about this essay, as i believe it does a good job of discrediting itself, much in the fashion of its subject matter.

a few points in closing:

adamryan wrote:

That was a great elaboration on what DrFear had written.

it wasn't an elaboration, it was a romanticization. they both say exactly the same thing. i think we all have enough reading to do here without watching you two mutually masturbate each other. ;}

Quote:

Though I think there are drastically differing claims from what the Bible contains when concerning natural events (including thunder, seasonal changes, and locust plagues) when compared to other, superstitious cultures, I agree with you that there do seem to be some similarity; and if we're not careful, we might dismiss the credibility of the Bible by accidentally (and unjustifiably) ignorantly consociating the *two.

the point was never comparison to other, "superstitious" cultures (not sure which cultures you're referring to), it was comparison to what is actually the truth, like the fact that the world is round, and that seasons are in direct relation to the earth's rotation around the sun, not godly, and certainly not from the sun's rotation around the earth.

Fear out.
Booya.

Fear is the mindkiller.


Atheist_Scathe
Posts: 69
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

Long time no debate, everyone. Eye-wink


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Failure of A Christian- A Request to Rediscuss Episode 17

my internet is down. i write this, using my friend's computer. when my internet is back up and running, i'll respond to the replies given to my last post. have fun.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

DrFear wrote:

perhaps not, but there are many who do, to the point that much of what we are forced to abide as law is based on theists forcing religious belief on an entire nation. this is why we strive for an impartial, non-theist society.

I'm with you on this one. I don't think that the first amendment justifies a fascist-like, oppressive enforcement of pietistic rules on society.

I dont think our nation is like that; but I agree with you, nonetheless.

DrFear wrote:

no evidence speaks for itself. evidence speaks only for or against a theory or accusation. it is this kind of flawed logic that leads to the leaps of faith and assumption we see in theism.

And you contradicted yourself, DrFear.

Read:

DrFear wrote:

no evidence speaks for itself.

Ok, so no evidence can "speak". You got me there.

DrFear wrote:

evidence speaks only for or against a theory or accusation.

uh...but i thought you said...uh...HUH?

DrFear wrote:

it is this kind of flawed logic that leads to the leaps of faith and assumption we see in theism.

So your argument is something like this:

-evidence can't speak
-evidence can speak.
-Therefore, theism is irrational.

Well I don't suppose I can argue with logic like that, now can I? :roll:

adamryan wrote:

I would rather reason with someone for an hour, than quote Bible verses to them for a minute.

DrFear wrote:

funny, coming from someone who did a good deal of biblical quotation as part of supposedly rational debate. the bible is what is in question here, it can't serve to prove itself true in this case.

Don't take my methods of reasoning out of context. Atheist_Scathe and I were speaking about the resurrection, and when I cited the verse, I noted that, according to the Bible that was when another resurrection was going to occur. I wasn't using circular reasoning; if I was, others would have called me on it. I suppose that says something about your apprehension skills.

DrFear wrote:

oh, he's a gentleman, is he? do you know him? does he call you at home?

Very mature dialog I see can have with you.

DrFear wrote:

every day i'm forced to do or not do things in the name of god.

You're an atheist, correct? How are you being forced to anything that has anything to do with God? Doesn't atheism, by definition, seperate your thoughts, actions, etc ect away from theism; hence, you'll have nothing to do with God? I don't see how you're being forced to do anything.

adamryan wrote:

If people randomly resurrected from the dead, what would make Christ's resurrection any better than the lay persons?

DrFear wrote:

what you're saying here is that people would get desensitized to the wonderment of resurrection.

Now you're catching on...

DrFear wrote:

this equates it with a magic act, perpetrated by god in order to show people he existed and make them believe.

No, it makes it an affirming sign that God backed all of the claims made by Jesus.

DrFear wrote:

but it is a popular theist contention when asked why god doesn't show himself, or at least show us he exists, that 'god doesn't need to prove anything. you just have to have faith.' so how come he needed to prove it back then, and not now?

He didn't need to. Still doesn't. He's already proven Himself to us; not because He was forced to, but because He's chosen to.

DrFear wrote:

things that happened five years ago have acheived legendary status in most people's minds. memories mutate quickly and easily into tales,

not over generations.

The tragic events of September 11th were five years ago. Name one thing that's "acheived legendary status" from that event.

And in any case, the gospels weren't written "generations and generations" after the events occurred; and also, can you give some evidence that backs up your statement (your statement: "memories mutate quickly and easily into tales, not over generations."); it would lend more credility and make you look like you're not just disproving my point by religiously asserting yours. Smiling

DrFear wrote:

Thirdly, Paul has been widely discredited from even having evidence of Christ's existence, much less individual things that happened to him and/or around him. see elsewhere on the board, it's hard to miss.

Interesting. I haven't read any of those arguments yet. It's a bit ironic how zealous the lengths of this whole "disproving the Bible" methodology will go. But I look forward to reading the explanations, nonetheless.

DrFear wrote:

...Muhammad did it 600 years later, and he didn't perform any miracles, he just took a bunch of books from the torah, and a few gospels, wrote the Qur'an, said it was the true word of god (the same exact god jews and christians believe in)...

Absurd. The muslims worship allah, an idol-god known to have been worshipped long before Muhammed was even born, and which is actually a derivitive of the common idol-god Baal(you should have done your research on that before you commented on it.).

They (muslims) try to give allah the authority of God by saying that he is "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob", but they do so in vain.

DrFear wrote:

this is the problem with christianity. it exists in a bubble where the entire world just began revolving around jesus and christianity, and the things that didn't revolve around christianity went on despite it, when in reality, things that didn't revolve around christianity went on regardless of it.

Ironic, the "entire world began revolving" a guy who, you contend, never existed. Oh, the irony of your logic.

DrFear wrote:

it wasn't an elaboration, it was a romanticization. they both say exactly the same thing. i think we all have enough reading to do here

without watching you two mutually masturbate each other. ;}

Clearly, you're intelligent.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: ho-hum

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

every day i'm forced to do or not do things in the name of god.

You're an atheist, correct? How are you being forced to anything that has anything to do with God? Doesn't atheism, by definition, seperate your thoughts, actions, etc ect away from theism; hence, you'll have nothing to do with God? I don't see how you're being forced to do anything.

Just a thought: When he spends cash, God is on the money... unconstitutionally.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:adamryan

Sapient wrote:
adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

every day i'm forced to do or not do things in the name of god.

You're an atheist, correct? How are you being forced to anything that has anything to do with God? Doesn't atheism, by definition, seperate your thoughts, actions, etc ect away from theism; hence, you'll have nothing to do with God? I don't see how you're being forced to do anything.

Just a thought: When he spends cash, God is on the money... unconstitutionally.

Did you remove my post, Sapient? I responded to this one a long time ago.

Oh well.

What I said before was that it wasn't a violation of the Constitution since it wasn't establishing any specific faith above any other; which is exactly what the first amendment protects.

It's merely a representation of what the majority of Americans ubiquitously show (or claim faith in) some sort of devotion to.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
adamryan wrote: And you

adamryan wrote:

And you contradicted yourself, DrFear.
Read:
DrFear wrote:

no evidence speaks for itself.

Ok, so no evidence can "speak". You got me there.

DrFear wrote:

evidence speaks only for or against a theory or accusation.

uh...but i thought you said...uh...HUH?

DrFear wrote:

it is this kind of flawed logic that leads to the leaps of faith and assumption we see in theism.

So your argument is something like this:

-evidence can't speak
-evidence can speak.
-Therefore, theism is irrational.
Well I don't suppose I can argue with logic like that, now can I? :roll:

mm-hmm. why don't you "read"? if you squint and look reeeallly closely, i never said evidence "can't speak". i said it can't speak for itself. finish reading the sentence before you go on a tirade. and i never supposed to use that comment to state that theism was irrational.

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

every day i'm forced to do or not do things in the name of god.

You're an atheist, correct? How are you being forced to anything that has anything to do with God? Doesn't atheism, by definition, seperate your thoughts, actions, etc ect away from theism; hence, you'll have nothing to do with God? I don't see how you're being forced to do anything.

it's less about what i'm forced to do, and more about what i'm prevented from doing.
hmm, let's see what religiously motivated/socially imposed laws i can scrounge up....it's illegal to sell/buy alcohol after 2 a.m. (here), it's illegal to not participate in the wearing of clothing, you can't participate in a court proceeding without swearing on a bible, stores that don't "believe in it" won't sell contraception, in order to buy porn or check out a stripper i have to duck into some seedy, windowless, sticky-floored hell-hole, and every time somebody wants to open a new porn/strip joint, the religious nuts scream til' they change their mind. gambling? out of the question (unless it's a church function...then it's ok somehow) television/movie entertainment, censored into unprofitable/unwatchable time-slots/situations in light of outcry from "family values" organizations. i could go on....but why....

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

this equates it with a magic act, perpetrated by god in order to show people he existed and make them believe.

No, it makes it an affirming sign that God backed all of the claims made by Jesus.

same thing. magicians back their claims as well...

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

but it is a popular theist contention when asked why god doesn't show himself, or at least show us he exists, that 'god doesn't need to prove anything. you just have to have faith.' so how come he needed to prove it back then, and not now?

He didn't need to. Still doesn't. He's already proven Himself to us; not because He was forced to, but because He's chosen to.

...not out of necessity, but just to prove it to everybody. i never said he was forced. i just said because he felt the need. and again: why choose to then and not any other time?

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

things that happened five years ago have acheived legendary status in most people's minds. memories mutate quickly and easily into tales,
not over generations.

The tragic events of September 11th were five years ago. Name one thing that's "acheived legendary status" from that event.

And in any case, the gospels weren't written "generations and generations" after the events occurred; and also, can you give some evidence that backs up your statement (your statement: "memories mutate quickly and easily into tales, not over generations."); it would lend more credility and make you look like you're not just disproving my point by religiously asserting yours. Smiling

9/11 is an invalid example. the images and events are replayed as they actually happened on a regular basis. even still, legendary status? how about all the cops and firefighters that are suddenly squeaky-clean, infallible heroes as a result of having two giant buildings fall on them? you think anybody besides their family and friends thought that way about them on september 10th? how about the "mastermind" status of Osama bin-Laden? he's some sort of super-villain now....it doesn't take a genius to crash anything into anything else. it happens by accident every damn day.
and yeah, i found plenty of papers on the mutation of memory over time and given new information and misinformation, unfortunately a power outage caused the file to be erased. but i'll be sure to look them all up again and send them to you.

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

...Muhammad did it 600 years later, and he didn't perform any miracles, he just took a bunch of books from the torah, and a few gospels, wrote the Qur'an, said it was the true word of god (the same exact god jews and christians believe in)...

Absurd. The muslims worship allah, an idol-god known to have been worshipped long before Muhammed was even born, and which is actually a derivitive of the common idol-god Baal(you should have done your research on that before you commented on it.).

They (muslims) try to give allah the authority of God by saying that he is "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob", but they do so in vain.

very good. i did the research, and you're right.
however, you have misread again, as i never said muhammad invented the idea of Allah, merely that he was able to mislead people in the same way that christ did.

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

this is the problem with christianity. it exists in a bubble where the entire world just began revolving around jesus and christianity, and the things that didn't revolve around christianity went on despite it, when in reality, things that didn't revolve around christianity went on regardless of it.

Ironic, the "entire world began revolving" a guy who, you contend, never existed. Oh, the irony of your logic.

and oh, yet again, the irony of you trying to sound slick and intelligent, whilst repeatedly misreading or incompletely reading statements.
READ: never said the world started revolving around the guy who never existed, in fact, never said it actually started revolving around anyone or anything. what i said was, in the hazily-recollected bubble of christian historicity, the proverbial world began revolving around christ. notice i continued to say that the actual world kept its course, regardless of christ.

adamryan wrote:

DrFear wrote:

it wasn't an elaboration, it was a romanticization. they both say exactly the same thing. i think we all have enough reading to do here

without watching you two mutually masturbate each other. ;}

Clearly, you're intelligent.

and clearly, you're illiterate. in light of that jab, though, maybe sapient ought to reconsider your little moderator position on the "killing them with kindness" forum. sounds a little tinged with acid, to me.
oh, and how's this for intelligence, and maturity? your picture makes you look like a flat-chested woman. with two male first names.
au revoir, trannie.

Fear is the mindkiller.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I don't agree with that last

I don't agree with that last comment...it completely degrades the bulk of your post...which was good...and I got to the end...and I almost lost respect for you...

I know I'm not one to talk, but I apologize when apologies are deserved...I think you should apologize for that last bit about his avatar...I wouldn't even go that far on an ad hom...and I'm usually pretty bad...

Otherwise...I only take note on one particular position of yours Fear, and that's the fact that You seem to think Christ was the culprit of misleading the early Jewish society, when in fact is was Paul moreso then Christ..as Christ was never a real person...merely the ehumerizerd personality

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
duly noted, rook. but it's

duly noted, rook.
but it's not as if this is real time and i couldn't think long and hard before posting such an ass-ish thumb-biting such as that. i've simply grown bored and tired of, instead of doing any debating, repeatedly clarifying and correcting knee-jerk, over-zealous misreadings, and, moreover, entertaining the seemingly popular notion that the act of joking somehow discredit's one's intellect.
so my totally silly, somewhat impersonal jab at a photograph is really that much more insulting or offensive than me cynically being called a moron? so be it. it really lends a lot of credence to my original post on this topic that it has become more a debate about name-calling, bickering, and grammatical semantics than biblical contradiction. apparently i was right. it is a moot point.
and i understand your jesus position, rook, but i haven't read your dissertation yet, and i'll continue to ride the fence on that one til i do.
keep in mind ( i can see where it would have been misconstrued) that any reference to jesus on my part is hypothetical. i've never asserted that he existed, but as of yet i still see it as more likely than not.
maybe i should have tagged that on as a disclaimer...oh well.
i stand by my loogie of bile. Smiling

Fear is the mindkiller.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
DrFear wrote:duly noted,

DrFear wrote:
duly noted, rook.
but it's not as if this is real time and i couldn't think long and hard before posting such an ass-ish thumb-biting such as that.

Granted, but that very thing is why you should have thought up another way to put him in his place without ad homing his pic. That is not going to make your arguement for you.

Quote:
i've simply grown bored and tired of, instead of doing any debating, repeatedly clarifying and correcting knee-jerk, over-zealous misreadings, and, moreover, entertaining the seemingly popular notion that the act of joking somehow discredit's one's intellect.

I understand. But debating is seldom for those involved, and more for those who are reading/listening/watching the debate in progress. It's those metaphorical fence-sitters we are aiming at.

Quote:
so my totally silly, somewhat impersonal jab at a photograph is really that much more insulting or offensive than me cynically being called a moron? so be it.

Neither is acceptable, you being called a moron is just as wrong.

Quote:
it really lends a lot of credence to my original post on this topic that it has become more a debate about name-calling, bickering, and grammatical semantics than biblical contradiction. apparently i was right. it is a moot point.

We all knew that from the first post. The reason is simple: Adamryan is still learning.

Quote:
and i understand your jesus position, rook, but i haven't read your dissertation yet, and i'll continue to ride the fence on that one til i do.

Even when luminaries such as Richard Carrier and Robert Price feel it is the opposite? I suggest you listen to my dissertation show #22, and the show coming up next weekend, with Richard Carrier. Also the Jesus Mythicism show is coming up and that will be well worth the listen.

Quote:
keep in mind ( i can see where it would have been misconstrued) that any reference to jesus on my part is hypothetical. i've never asserted that he existed, but as of yet i still see it as more likely than not.

Do you also hold that the possibiliy for Moses existed is more likely then not? What about Hercules? Zeus? Pandora? Mithras?

Quote:
maybe i should have tagged that on as a disclaimer...oh well.
i stand by my loogie of bile. Smiling

Heh, well don't make it a habit, you're a valuable asset here and wouldn't want your reputation impunged.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: That is

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
That is not going to make your arguement for you.

i am aware. that's the point. the argument was moot a long time ago, and i'm just tired of reiterating. in my particular chaotic nature, i figured i'd just throw a skunk in the room and get out. it's done, i do that sometimes, it amuses me to do so, and i won't apologize for being me. Smiling i understand you, brian, mike, etc.'s disdain for silly slaps such as that, but i also like to use sapient's assertion that "nothing is taboo" to fullest advantage, even if it is a slight abuse of said statement.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Even when luminaries such as Richard Carrier and Robert Price feel it is the opposite?

mmm, believe me, as much as i hate being picked at: so they just feel that way? them being luminaries doesn't make what they say any more true.....as i said, i haven't read or listened to any of the material yet, and i won't assert a point until i have.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Do you also hold that the possibiliy for Moses existed is more likely then not? What about Hercules? Zeus? Pandora? Mithras?

the latters, of course not, moses, i haven't heard anything to the contrary, but if you've got it, lay it on me....which isn't to say that i believe he did exist, i just have no reason to believe he didn't. (read: i'm completely indifferent towards the existence of moses at the current time Smiling)

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Heh, well don't make it a habit, you're a valuable asset here and wouldn't want your reputation impunged.

ha ha ha, yes, i can see i'm becoming a valuable obnoxious loudmouth, judging by the amount of offended retorts i've gotten of late Eye-wink i jest, but rarely assault.
i'm sorry, impunged? i'll assume a typo of impugned unless otherwise noted...

Fear. jawn.

Fear is the mindkiller.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
DrFear wrote:Rook_Hawkins

DrFear wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
That is not going to make your arguement for you.

i am aware. that's the point. the argument was moot a long time ago, and i'm just tired of reiterating. in my particular chaotic nature, i figured i'd just throw a skunk in the room and get out. it's done, i do that sometimes, it amuses me to do so, and i won't apologize for being me. Smiling i understand you, brian, mike, etc.'s disdain for silly slaps such as that, but i also like to use sapient's assertion that "nothing is taboo" to fullest advantage, even if it is a slight abuse of said statement.

I can't say I don't blame you.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Even when luminaries such as Richard Carrier and Robert Price feel it is the opposite?

mmm, believe me, as much as i hate being picked at: so they just feel that way? them being luminaries doesn't make what they say any more true.....

It's not a feeling any more then you "feel" you exist. It's a matter of probability, and the fact that Price has two doctorates in history and Carrier has two masters and a proto-doctorate (above a master but just below a doctorate..he's going for his as we speak) speaks volumes of their knowledge on this subject. Carrier has written many articles over at www.infidels.org and Price has stated this concerning the supposed evidence of a historical Jesus:

http://www.infidelguy.com/mp3/biblegeek_ep7_extra-biblical_price.mp3

You can also read this thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/peanut_gallery_jesus_history_contemporary_proofs_contest

Quote:
as i said, i haven't read or listened to any of the material yet, and i won't assert a point until i have.

You've had ample time, my friend.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Do you also hold that the possibiliy for Moses existed is more likely then not? What about Hercules? Zeus? Pandora? Mithras?

the latters, of course not, moses, i haven't heard anything to the contrary, but if you've got it, lay it on me....which isn't to say that i believe he did exist, i just have no reason to believe he didn't. (read: i'm completely indifferent towards the existence of moses at the current time Smiling)

So you will simply believe in Moses, even though you have no evidence for his existence, and no contemporary account? Yet you deny the other beings there, although they have the same amount of non-evidence? Where is the logic? Simply because you've been told about a character all your life does not make it any more real then the ones whom you haven't been told about.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Heh, well don't make it a habit, you're a valuable asset here and wouldn't want your reputation impunged.

ha ha ha, yes, i can see i'm becoming a valuable obnoxious loudmouth, judging by the amount of offended retorts i've gotten of late Eye-wink i jest, but rarely assault.
i'm sorry, impunged? i'll assume a typo of impugned unless otherwise noted...

Fear. jawn.

Good catch.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: I can't

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

I can't say I don't blame you.

fine. so you blame me. i can live with that.

i am aware of the gentlemens' credentials. i simply haven't read any of their stuff yet, and you bashing it into my head that i should have isn't going to make me do it any faster.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

You've had ample time, my friend.

don't presume to know what i occupy my time with. i haven't had time to do shit since late last year, and i still get in a few hours of RRS-related reading per week. so i'll get to it when i get to it.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

So you will simply believe in Moses, even though you have no evidence for his existence, and no contemporary account?

actually, if you read carefully, i said i didn't believe or disbelieve moses to be an actual person. my knowledge of moses extends this far, and this far only: moses is the name of a character in a book, and also a movie.
does this knowledge automatically point to him being fake? no.
does it give me any impression that he was real? no.
it is an issue completely on the fence (in my perception of it), and it has not been tipped one way or the other as of yet.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Yet you deny the other beings there, although they have the same amount of non-evidence? Where is the logic? Simply because you've been told about a character all your life does not make it any more real then the ones whom you haven't been told about.

i've been told about all of them equally. the other "beings" have never ever been presented to me as anything more than mythology.
ok. i'm going to read now. don't hate me too much. you know you have better things to do Smiling

Fear is the mindkiller.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Don't worry, no hate here.

Don't worry, no hate here.


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
DrFear wrote: mm-hmm. why

DrFear wrote:

mm-hmm. why don't you "read"? if you squint and look reeeallly closely, i never said evidence "can't speak".

I was being facetious.

DrFear wrote:

i said it can't speak for itself. finish reading the sentence before you go on a tirade. and i never supposed to use that comment to state that theism was irrational.

Ok, DrFear.

I guess it was wrong of me to assume that when you write:

DrFear wrote:

no evidence speaks for itself.

DrFear wrote:

evidence speaks only for or against a theory or
accusation.

and then

DrFear wrote:

it is this kind of flawed logic that leads to the leaps of faith and
assumption we see in theism.

Again, I'm being cyincal.

(sarcasm isn't fun unless the victim's apprehension skills exist)
Eye-wink

DrFear wrote:

it's less about what i'm forced to do, and more about what i'm
prevented from doing.

Oh yes. Damn these oppressive, constitution-violatin', bible-totin' mandates we face here in the United States.

DrFear wrote:

hmm, let's see what religiously motivated/socially imposed laws i can scrounge up....it's illegal to sell/buy alcohol after 2 a.m.
(here)

Christianity has nothing to do with that law. Nice try though.

DrFear wrote:

it's illegal to not participate in the wearing of clothing.

Again, Christianity has nothing to do with that law.

If it really bothers you that much, move to a nude beach.

DrFear wrote:

you can't participate in a court proceeding without swearing on a bible

Yes, you can.

DrFear wrote:

stores that don't "believe in it" won't sell contraception

Stores choose what goods they sell; if they dont have it, go somewhere else.

DrFear wrote:

in order to buy porn or check out a stripper i have to duck into some seedy, windowless, sticky-floored hell-hole, and every time somebody wants to open a new porn/strip joint, the religious nuts scream til' they change their mind.

Then move somewhere where it's not like that.

DrFear wrote:

gambling? out of the question (unless it's a church function...then it's ok somehow)

Again, not a Christian law. Go somewhere like Vegas, where it's allowed.
This is a free country; you're allowed to move residence.

DrFear wrote:

television/movie entertainment, censored into unprofitable/unwatchable time-slots/situations in light of outcry from "family values" organizations.

then upgrade from basic public television.

DrFear wrote:

i could go on....but why....

You whine alot.

DrFear wrote:

i just said because he felt the need. and again: why choose to then and not any other time?

Your "argument" (to use that word loosely) can apply to any time frame; it's a moot point.

DrFear wrote:

9/11 is an invalid example. the images and events are replayed as they actually happened on a regular basis.

Right. And the events of the New Testament were "replayed" every Sabbath, at church.

DrFear wrote:

even still, legendary status? how about all the cops and firefighters that are suddenly squeaky-clean, infallible heroes as a result of having two giant buildings fall on them?

Those people aren't even known by name, DrFear.

I'm sure that you can do some research and find their names, but it's entirely different when compared to Christianity; with
Christianity, you can ask four out of five people in the world about the person Jesus of Nazareth, and they'll know who you're talking about.

DrFear wrote:

how about the "mastermind" status of Osama bin-Laden?

Watch the History channel. Watch their special called Triple Cross.

Bin Laden was and is a "mastermind" when planning the 9/11 events.

DrFear wrote:

he's some sort of super-villain now....it doesn't take a genius to crash anything into anything else. it happens by accident every damn day.

There was a lot more into it. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Just watch Triple Cross.

DrFear wrote:

and yeah, i found plenty of papers on the mutation of memory over time and given new information and misinformation, unfortunately a power outage caused the file to be erased. but i'll be sure to look them all up again and send them to you.

I look forward to reading them.

DrFear wrote:

and clearly, you're illiterate.

Wow. I can see that this conversation with you will get far.

DrFear wrote:

in light of that jab, though, maybe
sapient ought to reconsider your little moderator position on the "killing them with kindness" forum.

sounds like somebody's jealous.

=]

DrFear wrote:

oh, and how's this for intelligence, and maturity? your picture makes you look like a flat-chested woman. with two male first names. au revoir, trannie.

That's the best you can do, DrFear? What a let-down.

Ok, go ahead and try again. I'll give you a second chance. I know you can't be that incompetent. I've seen better swings on a playground. Go ahead. And this time, how about attacking me like a man.

Criticize my character, or my intelligence, or what I stand for; at least then your insults will seem less puerile.

i think it's obvious now who can and can't discuss this topic.

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Atheist_Scathe wrote:Long

Atheist_Scathe wrote:
Long time no debate, everyone. Eye-wink

I think I scared Dr. Fear. Smiling

well, Scathe, how've you been?
and where'd we leave off on?

-adamryan

"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Welcome back.

Welcome back.


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
adamryan,

adamryan,

This is a reply to the post BEFORE the last post you made. In regards to the "you're allowed to move" comments, I think you're missing the point. The fact is, noone should have to move to get to a place where religious sensibilities do not override the rights of other citizens.
This is an argument I see a lot.

'So, "Insert country here" is a "insert religion here" nation. Don't like it? Move! It's a free world.'

And I don't think it's fair.(Although I agree with your 'upgrade from basic cable' comment! LOL)

This one especially.
Stores choose what goods they sell; if they dont have it, go somewhere else.

What do you do when all the stores in your county, city or state don't sell a certain kind of product? Say, a contraceptive product that you need as soon as possible to prevent pregnancy? And they won't sell it based on their religion? Which isn't the customer's religion?
See this thread... where I posted the story of a woman who this happened to.

Would you be mad if I owned every bookstore in town and I chose not to carry the bible? Because of personal beliefs? Sure, you'd probably get one somewhere else. But wouldn't you be a little miffed that you HAD to go to another county, city or state? And I can guarantee there would be an "angry christian letter writing/ boycotting campaign" of my store. Not that all christians would involve themselves in it, of course.

If you think Christian sensibilities play no part in attempting to control legislature and society in general, then you haven't seen this site.
Or this one.
Or even this one.
And check out this one!
These are all large organizations that want to change the laws of Canada, the UK and the US(respectively) to please "the lord". Check them out. I'm doing so as we speak and I think I'll be browsing them for a while, these are kind of scary.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Adamryan

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Adamryan is still learning.

Me too.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.