I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2015, 08:00 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The description of how he appeared to Paul is pretty clear.
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”... The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

Either way, whether or not he saw Jesus personally or Jesus spoke to him personally, it was still Jesus. So what is the point? Jesus spoke to him, and I will assume if Jesus spoke to you, that would make you a believer as well...sooo?

The point is, if Jesus never existed..I wouldn't expect him to be seen or heard from at ALL.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  He does not have to write "it was a vision" to be clear that it wasn't like he actually met Jesus walking down the road.

Assuming that he is even talking about the road to Damasus event. It could have been a completely different encounter with Jesus that he was referring to.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  That doesn't counter what I said. The stories of the disciples as recorded in the NT are late versions. We do not know what the specific beliefs were before then. Paul mentions a resurrection but with little detail.

Nonsense. First of all, late versions of what? An earlier story?? Laugh out load If the story is a late version, then that means that there was an earlier version, right? And the problem is, the earlier you go back, the more closer you will get to the event itself. And since 1Corin was written about 25 years after the event, you don't have much time to play with Big Grin As I said, the belief in the Resurrection is early stuff, even according to your own unsolicited admission. Second, again, when he claimed that Jesus appeared to him, that is his personal story, and you can only date that event itself to within 5 years of the cross. So again, early stuff.

Quote:quote='unfogged' pid='733317' dateline='1423514542']

Where did Jesus first appear, and to who? How long did he remain before ascending?

You tell me. You are the one crying contradiction Big Grin

Quote:quote='unfogged' pid='733317' dateline='1423514542']
The evidence is comparable. You should apply the same critical thinking to the bible that you do to the Quran and the Book of Mormon.

I do...and they don't come close to the Good Book.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  They were mistaken

How are you mistaken about the identity of the guy that spoke to you and ate with you over the course of a month? Makes no sense.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  ; they dreamed or hallucinated it;

People don't dream or hallucinate about the same thing. Try again.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  most any mundane explanation would be considerably more plausible than a miracle

But it has to have more explanatory value than a miracle, but it doesn't.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  So it's special pleading then. That's about what I expected.

It is about accepting the system of beliefs that has more explanatory evidence...and I believe Christianity does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 08:00 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 07:23 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 10:33 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  And some will just believe ANYTHING they read in an old book....

Like talking snakes, unicorns, worldwide floods, talking burning bushes, ect, ect, ect.......

Some people believe that life came from nonlife, a universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing...and a blind and mindless process created vision and consciousness.

Oh, the irony Weeping

Yeah. So you keep saying. Over and over. Your fallacy is a well known one. Weeping
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 08:09 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 07:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 07:28 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I live for this shit!!!!!!! Sorry, my excitement got the best of me...I agree...on the conditions that you make the opening statement. Other than that, don't take this ass whooping personally, son. Thumbsup

already posted you a thread as you requested....want me to move it to the boxing ring? I hope you are ready for this evisceration.

Move it to the boxing ring...and make it so that others can't post to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 08:13 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 08:00 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It is about accepting the system of beliefs that has more explanatory evidence...and I believe Christianity does.

So it's about reason after all. Not faith. Not a relationship with Jebus.
You're not really a Christian are you ?
You just have no better explanation.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 08:09 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 07:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  already posted you a thread as you requested....want me to move it to the boxing ring? I hope you are ready for this evisceration.

Move it to the boxing ring...and make it so that others can't post to it.

Super-Moderator note:

It's there, if any others post in it, I'll (happily) delete the posts.

The floor is yours Call of the Wild, that is, if you actually intend to debate.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
10-02-2015, 08:51 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 08:00 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The description of how he appeared to Paul is pretty clear.
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”... The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

Either way, whether or not he saw Jesus personally or Jesus spoke to him personally, it was still Jesus. So what is the point? Jesus spoke to him, and I will assume if Jesus spoke to you, that would make you a believer as well...sooo?

The point is, if Jesus never existed..I wouldn't expect him to be seen or heard from at ALL.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  He does not have to write "it was a vision" to be clear that it wasn't like he actually met Jesus walking down the road.

Assuming that he is even talking about the road to Damasus event. It could have been a completely different encounter with Jesus that he was referring to.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  That doesn't counter what I said. The stories of the disciples as recorded in the NT are late versions. We do not know what the specific beliefs were before then. Paul mentions a resurrection but with little detail.

Nonsense. First of all, late versions of what? An earlier story?? Laugh out load If the story is a late version, then that means that there was an earlier version, right? And the problem is, the earlier you go back, the more closer you will get to the event itself. And since 1Corin was written about 25 years after the event, you don't have much time to play with Big Grin As I said, the belief in the Resurrection is early stuff, even according to your own unsolicited admission. Second, again, when he claimed that Jesus appeared to him, that is his personal story, and you can only date that event itself to within 5 years of the cross. So again, early stuff.

Quote:quote='unfogged' pid='733317' dateline='1423514542']

Where did Jesus first appear, and to who? How long did he remain before ascending?

You tell me. You are the one crying contradiction Big Grin

Quote:quote='unfogged' pid='733317' dateline='1423514542']
The evidence is comparable. You should apply the same critical thinking to the bible that you do to the Quran and the Book of Mormon.

I do...and they don't come close to the Good Book.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  They were mistaken

How are you mistaken about the identity of the guy that spoke to you and ate with you over the course of a month? Makes no sense.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  ; they dreamed or hallucinated it;

People don't dream or hallucinate about the same thing. Try again.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  most any mundane explanation would be considerably more plausible than a miracle

But it has to have more explanatory value than a miracle, but it doesn't.

(10-02-2015 06:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  So it's special pleading then. That's about what I expected.

It is about accepting the system of beliefs that has more explanatory evidence...and I believe Christianity does.

Actually if you had ever really read the Babble, you would know there is more than one way the Damascus Road story is told. He had an hallucination OR told an outright lie. Both are much more probable than "jebus talked to him", Mr. "Oh how did the universe *happen* " So on the one hand you champion what you claim is "reason" and on the other are perfectly content to give it up. Not exactly consistent are you ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-02-2015, 10:15 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2015 11:33 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 07:18 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 10:24 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Your self perception misses the mark by a country mile, you’re just one more pompous ass that is blinded by bullshit. Like others before you are proud of your ignorance and attempt to hide behind the bluster. I’m not impressed.

As for the Laws of Thermodynamics you’re like G. Sewell who’s papers (“Poker Entropy and the Theory of Compensation”) are always being rejected by scientific journals because they are flat out wrong. This is a PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times).

"An ID proponent presents a bad argument, then pompously struts around as though it is everyone else who is confused. Nothing to see here, everyone move along now…”

Sewell got spanked, and now so are you. Again.

Here is a short explanation why you and your sources are wrong plus several links as to why your argument is false. I don’t really care if you read them but the others who are following this thread and are actually interested in understanding the “why" might.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...eationist/

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/sh...s_problem/

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/20...econd-law/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_Law_...modynamics


Point?

The point is obvious to everyone but you, that you are ignorant and happily so. How did that spanking feel? Big Grin

[Image: arguing-with-retards.jpg]

“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
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
10-02-2015, 10:29 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:15 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 07:18 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Point?

How did that spanking feel? Big Grin

[Image: arguing-with-retards.jpg]

Jesus playing chess with a pigeon? Blink

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:39 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:29 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 10:15 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  How did that spanking feel? Big Grin

[Image: arguing-with-retards.jpg]

Jesus playing chess with a pigeon? Blink

Rasputin I think.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
10-02-2015, 11:00 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:41 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Horse shit to you because you can't (and won't) understand the explanations given to you and dismiss if off hand because you like your creationist ideas better. For example, it was earlier explained how "inanimate" matter coming to life is meaningless because matter is not defined as living or not.

I hate when people tell me what was "explained" to me as if the person that they just HAPPENS to share similar thoughts with answers has more virtue than mines Laugh out load


I don't understand what you are saying here.

Quote:Laughable. It is just a foolish objection. Same example I used earlier...murder someone and tell the jury "I did not murder the man, because the man was never living" Laugh out load

See how much that foolish response will help you.


(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  You clearly haven't responded or seen it as shown by you repeating your tired argument from incredulity again.

So let me just flat out ask you sense you have the nerve to cosign that ridiculous notion that "matter is not living"...

Are you alive right now? Yes or no?

You're trying to argue that because an animal is living, it's atoms can also be qualified as living. That's like saying because a computer is Turing complete means that its atoms are Turing complete. You can't qualify atoms as animate or inanimate, as there is no distinction nor definition for 'animate matter'. You can say that for an object that is made of atoms such as an amoeba, but the atoms don't carry the description of living or not.

So yes, I am living, but that doesn't mean the atoms are classified as 'living'.

Being a sophist doesn't help your argument.

Quote:
(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  By the way, you do know the 'universes coming from nothing' ridicule is actually attacking your creationist idea that gawd created something from nothing?

I can conceive of God creating from nothing just like I can conceive a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat...what I can't conceive is natural law being used to explain how a universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. The reason is because absurdities cannot be conceived.
[quote]

What you consider as absurd can come across as realistic to others and is a fallacy. Your god is absurd to many of us, for example.

Where did God come from by the way? Claiming he is timeless and always there is special pleading in a universe that isn't.

(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  And that the Big Bang theory doesn't state it came from 'nothing', it only explains the process of which our universe expanded from something highly compressed.

So where did this highly compressed reality come from?

Dunno. I'm going to guess you're going to take that as Goddunnit with no evidence for it.

Quote:
(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Oh so he PROMISES to send you to the hell that he created for an eternity if you don't obey him! What a loving god you have! Rolleyes

You don't follow man's law, you go to prison...you don't follow God's law, you go to hell. Same shit..one is just less desirable than the other....but the concept is the same Big Grin

Oh so throwing a person in jail for awhile (or life) compares to sending a person to hellfire to be tortured for eternity? Especially for something so minor such as coveting your neighbor's property or holding onto your possessions?

Your god's form of justice is extremely sociopathic; sending someone to hell for eternity is not forgiving.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kaepora Gaebora's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: