Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2015, 06:35 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  ...
how can we not be convinced? Laughat

Dunno. Cos Satan, maybe?

Seems legit.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
04-02-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If you have evidence of a mind that is not dependent on a functioning brain please present it. As far as I know there is no such evidence.

That is easy, we can start off by the Law of Identity, which state that if you have two entities (or whatever), A and B, if there is something true of A that isn't true of B, then A and B are not identical. If they were identical, then what is true of A should also be true of B.

So when we talk about the mind and the brain, mental states such as happiness, anger, joy, sadness...these are mental states, not physical states....so when you are happy, your brain isn't happy...nor is the neurons in your brain happy...YOU are happy, not your brain. That distinction alone is enough to say that the brain and the mind are two separate entities.

Second, our brain is made up of matter, no one will argue that...but I can conceive of a scientist taking the cartilage that the brain is made up and going to a lab and proceeding to shape and mold the cartilage into a brain...but where would the consciousness come from?

Thoughts are immaterial, you cannot weigh or touch the thought of a cat...so if the scientist wanted to make the brain think of a cat, how will he do it? It isn't as if he can pull the thought of a cat out of a deep freezer and carry it over to the brain and place the thought on top of the brain and watch the thought sink into the brain, and now suddenly the brain is thinking of a cat.

So where would consciousness come from, even if you shaped a fresh and brand new brain from preexisting material???

Can't happen...and you can try all you want, but you are unable to conceive of how on earth could consciousness originate from preexisting material, can you? Because it didn't happen.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Correlation does not prove causation but it sure provides grounds for a working hypothesis, especially in the absence of ANY contradictory examples.

And what hypothesis would that be, and what is the framework to test it?

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I have no idea what a "moral proof" is.

Moral proof shouldn't have been on the list.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The others all depend on the axioms and premises selected and if those aren't grounded in anything that is demonstrably real then they may be interesting, and potentially even useful, but they aren't knowledge in the same sense that methodological naturalism provides.

Ok, so the statement "We should only believe things that can be scientifically proven", the truth value of that statement itself cannot be scientifically proven, so methodological naturalism is a self defeating concept.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Without empirical methods all you have is supposition. I agree that you don't get far without them but what I don't understand is why anybody thinks they actually get anywhere with anything else. It is all just different fantasies.

Well, if empirical methods is incapable of answering my questions, I shouldn't look elsewhere for answers?

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  It is rational to say "I don't know". It is rational to hypothesize, or postulate, but those guesses only have value if you can come up with ways to test them to see if they work. That's what Krauss is doing. Just saying "must be god" is not answering the questions, it is giving up on them.

Actually, it is the Law of Excluded Middle...I have only two options: Goddidit, or Naturedidit...If I can prove that nature couldn't have done it (which I can), then the God hypothesis wins by default...there is no middle ground here. The origin of the universe, life, and consciousness will always be sciences' biggest problems.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  No, no pre-existing space. The idea is that space itself is being created. I agree it is a strange concept and I'm not saying that I think Krauss is correct because it is beyond my education in the field so I am in no position to hold a position about it.

Makes no sense. If we were sitting in the living room watching the SuperBowl and we heard a loud POP coming from the room, and you asked me "What the hell was that" or "Where did that POP come from", and I respond "Oh, nothing"...would you accept that?

I mean seriously, be honest.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If you believe that a god existed somehow "outside" our universe in order to create it then you have only backed the question up a level. That god must exist in some sort of spacetime and the immediate question is where did that come from.

Not at all, God is a spirit...a mind...which would make him immaterial, and something that is immaterial does not occupy space. And since I believe that God was in a timeless state (stationary state) from eternity, there was no time...time began only when God began to create.

The universe on the other hand, that does occupy space, and that does exist in time..and there is no way out of it either.


(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Postulating an eternal god because the idea of an eternal universe seems absurd just obfuscates that absurdity so that it isn't as uncomfortable to think about. Claiming a god doesn't resolve anything.

Actually, God resolves everything. If you can go in a lab and demonstrate how a universe could have originated from nothing, how life could have arisen from nonliving material, and how the brain can be the origin of consciousness...if you can demonstrate these things, then I would become a naturalist. Until then, I will stick to my theism.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Yes, a causal agent is a complex thing which is by definition more complicated than just a quantity of mass/energy. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying that the idea of a universe from nothing IS simpler than starting with a god because you don't then have to explain the god.

Ok, so explain what is it about the universe that will allow only universes to pop in to being out of nothing...instead of cars, money, or horses?? So basically, what you are saying that you find the idea that a horse can just pop into your room out of nothing...you find that idea rational?? Okkkk. That is the price of atheism right there....belief in absurdities all because you don't want to believe in the Almighty.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The terminology is difficult and easy to equivocate on. "Nothing" for lunch is just saying that there is no object to which I gave the label "lunch". That's not quite the same as the "nothing" that the universe may have come from. We're talking no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no dimensions, no vacuum, ... nothing.

Well, lets put it in the same light that the universe is in...suppose your stomach was empty and then suddenly it became full with food, despite the fact that you didn't eat anything...the food came from nothing. Now as absurd as that may seem, how can that be any less absurd than an entire universe??Big Grin

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  This is all kind of a red herring though, as whether the universe came from "nothing", or there is a multiverse of some kind, or something else we haven't conceived of, or even if there is something that could be labelled a god, is completely irrelevant to my atheism. I do not know what came before the big bang or if "before" even makes sense in that context. I'm not going to jump to "god" to make me feel like I've answered the question because I have zero evidence for that hypothesis. If positive evidence for a god ever turns up and it is compelling then, and only then, will I treat it as a reasonable belief to hold.

Well, you don't have to worry about labeling it as a god, because there is no evidence of Krauss' universe, nor is there evidence of a multiverse...so there isn't even any evidence of the natural stuff...all we know is that our universe had a beginning. As mentioned previously, the philosophical problem of infinite duration in time is a independent problem...independent of the physics of the universe, and neither Krauss or anyone else can help you there.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You keep saying that but you don't know what can possibly be created from a state of nothingness. We don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate to determine what limits may or may not exist.

Wait a minute, we don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate yet you are advocating Krauss' model which imply a universe from nothing? Undecided

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  We know that we have a universe. We do not know what preceded the form it is currently in or what possibilities there are. Physicists are working on it. Until they make more progress my answer is "I don't know" and I am quite comfortable that that is the best answer available to me right now.

Well, you can wait for physicists to figure it out, and while you are waiting for that, I will be waiting on Jesus' return. Thumbsup

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Then you haven't studied it sufficiently.

LMAO
If, in a lab situation you wanted the brain to think "cat" you would flash a photo of a cat in front of the subject. Mind is a concept involving the brain and its parts (spinal column etc) and its function known as consciousness. At one time the heart was supposed to be the seat of conciousness. We ruled that out after a lot of experimentation and thought.
We are living in a universe composed of mostly space, which is mostly a vacuume, or another way of saying it is made of nothing. It is said you can't create matter or destroy matter, yet it came from nothing? What is matter? Another form of energy, which is composed of mass accelerated to square of the speed of light I would guess from e=mc^2.
My head is spinning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2015 04:31 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  There is zero evidence that jesus christ the myth, the legend, the zombie savior ever was a historical person.

Yet the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus existed. Hmmmm.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  We have no physical evidence, no works of carpentry, no personal items, no writings...

So you are expecting to find a hammer (carpentry) with the initials "J.C" inscription on it?

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  furthermore, no one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him...no one. All writings of jesus were written down by people who were either born after he died, or never actually met him, thus all stories are based on myth, legend and hearsay.

The Gospels were all written by either disciples or friends of the disciples, within the lifetime of the disciples. Second, the Resurrection account was not a story based on legend, but something that was believed shortly after the cross.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  For example. If upon his death, the earth shook, corpses burst out of their graves and walked around town, and the entire earth grew dark from 3-6 pm, someone AT THE TIME would have thought these events significant enough to perhaps write down...

First off, the vast majority of people living at that time and in that region could not read or write...and this was long before facebook and twitter...as far as the corpses is concerned, it doesn't state how many corpses were resurrected, and I doubt they would have been recognized by those that were in Jerusalem anyway. Third, the darkness was mentioned by historian Thallus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(hi...of_Thallus

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  nope, we wait until the first quarter of the 4th century to have an epiphany and start writing down stories, and we all know how people LOVE to tell stories, and exaggerate them. odd not a word until then Consider A thinking person would call bullshit. Allow me to expound....

4th century? Every book in the NT was written prior to the 2nd century.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  No one who ever wrote of jesus, actually knew him.

Each of the Gospels were written in the genre of "biography"...biographies of a man named Jesus...and since they were written as biographies, they mention information about him that only someone that was close to him would know. We have reasons to believe that the Gospels were written by either the disciples of friends of the disciples..so at the very least, the stories that we have was originated by close followers of Jesus, and that is the very least that can be said.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  When you learn this, and validate this, it throws the whole Christianity belief basis out the window, thus discrediting it. Lets look at this real quick..

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. See the bottom where I get into Paul a bit more.

Paul's earliest epistles was written early to mid 50's C.E.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

All irrelevant.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

The problem with your assessment and what you fail to mention is the fact that scholars already know what parts of Josephus accounts were interpolated...and once those interpolations are omitted, what do you have? The historical Jesus. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Second, as you mentioned, Josephus was born in 37 CE, which means that by the time he was 20, he was an adult during the lifetime of the original disciples which would include Paul, who died around 65 CE. So this was not hearsay if the eyewitnesses of Jesus were the ones around telling the story in the same time and region that Josephus lived.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

As just mentioned, the part that was interpolated can be omitted and if that is the case you would still have the historical Jesus.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Right, and he said that these Christians were singing hymns to "Christ as if to a god"...and I use this passage as a reference when I try to explain to my Jehovah Witness friends that the concept of the Trinity was believed well before the reign of Constantine Big Grin

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Bogus. Tacitus casually stated that Jesus was indeed crucified by Pontius Pilate, just like the Gospels tell us...and he didn't need to live in the 30's C.E to know this just like someone that is alive in 2050 didn't need to live in the 1960's to know that Oswald shot JFK (allegedly).

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

I will give you this one...however, it is bogus to say that even if he meant Christ, it says nothing about the early Jesus...it would imply that Jesus existed, wouldn't it? Second, if the criterion is that a person had to live during the time of a person or even to establish historicity, then we need to disregard practically the entire genre of history then.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

Regardless of who Thallus was, if there was never any darkness to begin with, then there wouldn't have been a need to provide a natural explanation for it, now would there? The fact that he tried to provide a naturalistic explanation for a darkness would imply that there was indeed a darkness during that time.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

You take all of those sources, PLUS the Gospels, PLUS the writings of Paul, it is when you take ALL of these accounts and put them together, that is why it is enough for historians to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth existed...that is why the vast majority of all historians believe that Jesus existed.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  So when we consider that during times of miraculous events, no one AT THE TIME thought they were significant enough to even write down, it kind of of makes a thinking person contemplate the validity of a story told and written down based on myth and hearsay 60-150 years later..For example;

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

So if you were living during that time and in that region, and darkness covered the land, what would you have wrote down? You would have grabbed a pen and pad and wrote "Darkness covered the land for about 3 hours"...and then what? What good would it have done to write it down? Not to mention the fact that again, the majority of the people could not read and write anyway...and when the earth did receive light once again, it would have been something that have been forgotten about (for the most part).

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Unfortunately, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 mins max, so it wasn’t that....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

First off, only Luke's narrative state that it covered the "whole earth", the other two state that it only covered the entire land, which could mean only Jerusalem was in darkness.


(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Another example:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Again…no one thought a zombie invasion was worthy of writing down…seems rather odd.

The people COULD NOT READ OR WRITE. You are making it seem as if as soon as stuff happened, people were supposed to run into their homes and just start writing away. After you write it, then what?? What happens after that? You put the paper in a drawer? What happens? Writing it down serves no purpose whatsoever unless you are one of those folks that has a journal and writes anything down regardless of significance, such as, “I went to the store today and purchased some doritos” or something like that.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  When you research authorship of each book of the bible, you find out they were not written by whom you think, which makes them suspect for any level of validity.

Actually, I did, and I draw a different conclusion that you do.


Let’s look at the gospels a bit more…

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence.

We get the knowledge of who wrote the Gospels from the early Church Fathers, who were the second generation apostles. Now, of course you will say that the early Church Fathers weren’t around (alive) during the time of the alleged events, but that is fine…they were relying on early Church tradition which is carried down from generation to generation, and Papias was a disciple of John, and John was one of the original disciples, in fact, one of Jesus right hand men. As far as the dating of the Gospels is concerned, we can build a solid case that all of the Gospels were written prior to 70AD…and of course that doesn’t even include the epistles of Paul, whose writings pre-dates ALL of the Gospels.

Third, you talk about people who weren’t eyewitnesses, when in the Gospel of Luke he SPECIFICALLY states in the preface that the information that he is giving (and that they received) comes from EYEWITNESSES. The origin of his material comes from eyewitnesses. Now you can say that he was lying or whatever, but the claim has always been that the information being passed along comes from eyewitnesses, and Paul even mentions this in his 1Cor 15:3-7 account.


(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported.

Damn right the pre-70 date has been strongly supported. Throughout the book of Matthew, he is quick to let audiences know whenever Jesus fulfilled a prophecy. Jesus predicted that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed in Matt 24:1-2. We know that the temple was destroyed in 70AD, yet this key event in Jewish history was not mentioned in the New Testament…but all of the books were written post 70 AD?? Makes no sense. No Gospel mentions it, and neither did Paul, which is why all of the books can be argued to have been written pre-70…and then you can just work backwards from there.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer.

Not so fast. First off, as just mentioned, even if the author of Matthew was someone other than the disciple, that still doesn’t explain why he would fail to mention the fulfilling of the temples’ destruction if he is painting Jesus out to be a prophecy fulfiller and the book was written after the temple was destroyed. Makes no sense whatsoever, in my opinion. Second, if the author of Matthew did borrow from Mark, and Matthews Gospel was written prior to 70AD, then that would mean that Mark’s Gospel was written even early than 70AD…as I said, you can only work backwards from there. Third, those Q and M sources were just sayings of Jesus, which would of course have had to come from earlier sources if you are saying that Matthew used those sources, so again, working backwards.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person.

Third person is just a literary style and it is up to the discretion of the author whether or not to use it.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Which is true? Well, it is true that just because WE don’t have evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine, that therefore there was no earlier census during the reign of Augustine. No one living today was there, but Luke was closer to the scene and lived closer to the time than anyone that is alive today, so I will trust him to speak on these matters more so than I would skeptics and critics who are living 2,000 years later.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

No I don’t think it is odd. First off, Matthew correctly records that the birth of Jesus was in Bethlehem, and Bethlehem wasn’t a major city during that time…so how many boys would there have been under the age of two in a small little town? Not that many.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

And why do we have reasons to reject the testimony of the early church that Mark, companion of Peter, wrote this Gospel?

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories.

Mark was ONE of the sources that Matthew and Luke used.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

True, the last 12 verses may have been interpolation, and true, the earliers documents ends after the women find the empty tomb. But let’s not make it seem as if the post-mortem appearances isn’t implied. In verse 7, the narrative clearly states that the young man in the tomb told the women regarding Jesus, “Tell his disciples and Peter that he is ahead of you in Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” So the post mortem appearance is clearly implied here regardless of whether or not we have the rest of the story in the book of Mark.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

Please explain why the authorship of Luke is doubted.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Anyone can systematically doubt anything, the question is why? Unless you have good reasons to doubt the validity of the early church testimony, then obviously you have an axe to grind.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Well, earlier you were talking about people that weren’t alive during the time of Jesus. Guess what? Paul was, and despite him having not met Jesus, he met Peter, one of the right hand men of Jesus, and he also met James, brother of Jesus. So the accounts that he wrote about in his epistles were contemporary reports…the reports were from eyewitnesses which would make the reports early and viable…and let’s not pretend that Paul’s writings doesn’t pre-date the Gospels, which they do.

(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

Well, Paul said himself that he did see Jesus in 1Corith 15:3-7…the only question, as you mention, is whether or not he was hallucinating or lying. Based on the hardships that he suffered throughout his life, I doubt he would have went through all of that if his claims were based on something that he knew was a lie. And the hallucinating, you just said yourself that the men with his heard a loud sound…I guess they were hallucinating too, huh?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 09:24 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So let's look at all of the baseless presuppositions Call Of The Wild has invoked so far:

1. The universe exists, so a magical being created it - even though matter and energy could indeed be eternal itself requiring no magical being.

Straw man. The argument is because the universe had a beginning, it had a cause for its beginning. In other words, everything that begins to exist has a cause...and since this is basically the kalam cosmological argument which explains WHY the universe could not "indeed be eternal itself", then you would need to address the premises of the argument instead of going on the typical atheist rant with the "magical being" crap.

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  2. This magical being currently exists and is omni-everything so it is aware and interested in humans on this insignificant mote of dust in the cosmos.

Perfectly conceivable.

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  3. This magical being is called god and it just so happens, out of thousands of gods, that THIS god is the correct choice! Will the miracles never cease? What are the odds?

Oh, you mean the Christian one? It just so HAPPENS that there is evidence a Christian would use that would make Christian theism more plausible than other forms of theism.

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Even though the Genesis creation myth is based upon the Babylonian Elam Elish, it apparently does not prove the Babylonian gods, just the Abrahamic old testament god.Consider

Oh, Babylonian myths claimed that "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Oh, I didn't know that.

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  4. The Jewish YHWH god that has Jesus as his son and savior from our sins is the right version of this Abrahamic god, those Jews that wrote about YHWH sans Jesus don't know what they're talking about!

What?

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Presupposition, stacked upon presupposition, stacked upon presupposition, with zero evidence of the truth of a single presupposition, how can we not be convinced? Laughat

True, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and sent his only begotten Son to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. To a unbeliever, that may seem silly. Got it. But atheists/naturalists believe that the universe either popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, or there was this eternal inanimate matter out there floating around in space, and for some reasons unbeknown to science (and logic and reason), this lifeless matter suddenly came to life and began thinking, talking, and reproducing.

I am sorry, I will stick to my Christian theism...I don't have the faith to believe in that other nonsense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 09:25 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:30 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  That the myth of Jesus is as real as the Godfather movie?

Jesus gave me a deal, either accept him as Lord and Savior and have eternal life, or "otherwise" Big Grin

And I must say, it was "an offer I couldn't refuse". Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 09:27 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:37 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay.. what about it? On one level.. it is a book.

To an unbeliever, it is just a book. To a believer, it is the inspired Word of the Living God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 09:41 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-02-2015 09:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So let's look at all of the baseless presuppositions Call Of The Wild has invoked so far:

1. The universe exists, so a magical being created it - even though matter and energy could indeed be eternal itself requiring no magical being.

Straw man. The argument is because the universe had a beginning, it had a cause for its beginning. In other words, everything that begins to exist has a cause...and since this is basically the kalam cosmological argument which explains WHY the universe could not "indeed be eternal itself", then you would need to address the premises of the argument instead of going on the typical atheist rant with the "magical being" crap.

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  2. This magical being currently exists and is omni-everything so it is aware and interested in humans on this insignificant mote of dust in the cosmos.

Perfectly conceivable.

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  3. This magical being is called god and it just so happens, out of thousands of gods, that THIS god is the correct choice! Will the miracles never cease? What are the odds?

Oh, you mean the Christian one? It just so HAPPENS that there is evidence a Christian would use that would make Christian theism more plausible than other forms of theism.

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Even though the Genesis creation myth is based upon the Babylonian Elam Elish, it apparently does not prove the Babylonian gods, just the Abrahamic old testament god.Consider

Oh, Babylonian myths claimed that "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Oh, I didn't know that.

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  4. The Jewish YHWH god that has Jesus as his son and savior from our sins is the right version of this Abrahamic god, those Jews that wrote about YHWH sans Jesus don't know what they're talking about!

What?

(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Presupposition, stacked upon presupposition, stacked upon presupposition, with zero evidence of the truth of a single presupposition, how can we not be convinced? Laughat

True, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and sent his only begotten Son to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. To a unbeliever, that may seem silly. Got it. But atheists/naturalists believe that the universe either popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, or there was this eternal inanimate matter out there floating around in space, and for some reasons unbeknown to science (and logic and reason), this lifeless matter suddenly came to life and began thinking, talking, and reproducing.

I am sorry, I will stick to my Christian theism...I don't have the faith to believe in that other nonsense.
What is faith really? What rational being would accept stories about supernatural beings and events that can't be proven, from people who don't question and verify what they hear? How does faith work. What makes it tick? What drives it? Who subscribes to it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 10:04 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-02-2015 09:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So let's look at all of the baseless presuppositions Call Of The Wild has invoked so far:

1. The universe exists, so a magical being created it - even though matter and energy could indeed be eternal itself requiring no magical being.

Straw man. The argument is because the universe had a beginning, it had a cause for its beginning. In other words, everything that begins to exist has a cause...and since this is basically the kalam cosmological argument which explains WHY the universe could not “indeed be eternal itself”, then you would need to address the premises of the argument instead of going on the typical atheist rant with the “magical being” crap.

Oops. http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-of-light/
BTW the “magical being’ rant crap is all yours my friend.
Kalam = infinite regression. You can’t have your god and eat it too.


(04-02-2015 09:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  2. This magical being currently exists and is omni-everything so it is aware and interested in humans on this insignificant mote of dust in the cosmos.

Perfectly conceivable.

But totally irrational.

(04-02-2015 09:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  3. This magical being is called god and it just so happens, out of thousands of gods, that THIS god is the correct choice! Will the miracles never cease? What are the odds?

Oh, you mean the Christian one? It just so HAPPENS that there is evidence a Christian would use that would make Christian theism more plausible than other forms of theism.

Oh, right, the Bible. Circular reasoning spill on aisle 3.

(04-02-2015 09:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Even though the Genesis creation myth is based upon the Babylonian Elam Elish, it apparently does not prove the Babylonian gods, just the Abrahamic old testament god.Consider

Oh, Babylonian myths claimed that "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Oh, I didn’t know that.

What would you expect from goat herders that shat in their own water supply?

(04-02-2015 09:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  4. The Jewish YHWH god that has Jesus as his son and savior from our sins is the right version of this Abrahamic god, those Jews that wrote about YHWH sans Jesus don't know what they're talking about!

What?

Get with the program.

(04-02-2015 09:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 06:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Presupposition, stacked upon presupposition, stacked upon presupposition, with zero evidence of the truth of a single presupposition, how can we not be convinced? Laughat

True, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and sent his only begotten Son to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. To a unbeliever, that may seem silly. Got it. But atheists/naturalists believe that the universe either popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, or there was this eternal inanimate matter out there floating around in space, and for some reasons unbeknown to science (and logic and reason), this lifeless matter suddenly came to life and began thinking, talking, and reproducing.

I am sorry, I will stick to my Christian theism...I don't have the faith to believe in that other nonsense.

Oh, look, this hasn’t been explained to my satisfaction and/or humanity is still probing for evidence. I know, let’s stick god in there!

   

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
04-02-2015, 10:16 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
First, here is my full reply to yourself.

(03-02-2015 07:37 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 07:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  For the first time in my life, I was missed Big Grin

Hug

(03-02-2015 07:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I cite the entire New Testament Thumbsup

Okay.. what about it? On one level.. it is a book.

The history and veracity there of others on the forum have posted much and many links about.

So.. you think it's a good book. I should.. what...?

Much cheers to all.

So, why should your book be any better than any other work of fiction>?

I am also wondering of what you made of other's posts reflecting their information regarding the history/of said book? Consider

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2015 09:32 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-02-2015 09:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 07:30 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  That the myth of Jesus is as real as the Godfather movie?

Jesus gave me a deal, either accept him as Lord and Savior and have eternal life, or "otherwise" Big Grin

And I must say, it was "an offer I couldn't refuse". Thumbsup

Cool, I admire your honesty of having fear instead of faith.

Of course most atheists see Christianity as a simple religion created by men to control other men, the "offer you can't refuse" makes this apparent.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: