I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2015, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 09:40 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 08:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 08:37 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

To Call_of_the_Wild.

I would be happy to have a chat about evolution. Though, due to time zone and scheduling differances/difficulties a one on one here on the forums would suit myself better.

Much cheers to all.

I have to vent. With all due respect, I just can't buy the "scheduling" and "I am busy" sob stories. There are 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week....so, 168 hours in an entire week...and all you would need to do is put aside one hour of the 168 total to discuss these same subjects that you are quick to jump on these forums to discuss.

I am not just talking about you personally, but in general. It is as if you guys don't want to be taken out of your element because you are so used to having your colleagues on here cosign everything you say and cheerlead you on, that if you are taken away from that element you are vulnerable.

Case in point. GWG gave the ultimate sob story of them all...military duty, school, kids...he just doesn't have the time for a live debate exchange...yet, he said that he spent 5 hours typing his response to me on here....so he has 5 hours to spend typing a response on here, but you don't have the time to carry the debate to a real time format??

And it just doesn't happen on this forum, this is the third forum that I've been on where I've issued a challenge to anyone in a real time format, whether it is voice format, or instant messaging, and I get the same thing..."I am busy", "I live in Austrailia" "I would rather do it here"....but these are the same people that are spending that same time typing hundreds of posts to me on the forum, and sometimes they are online at the same time that I am online??

Am I in the twilight zone?

hey dipshit, I balance multiple real world items at the same time, during my 5 hours I had to jump up and make breakfast for the family, take the dogs out, assist my wife multiple times on her Master's level papers, deal with the kids...not all of us have nothing to do but sit in our bedroom trying to figure out which thumb feels better when buried in our own ass and making baseless assertions of our belief in something without evidence on an atheist forum. You haven't made one single validated, substantiated point yet. Go to post 8 Timmy, and click it where it says snip, read, think, and maybe you can actually evolve. I have forgotten more about your religion than you will most likely every understand. I don't have the time to stop my life and get on a chat board with you, sorry, my family and real world obligations have far too much value to me then to ignore them, for you.

Here because I pity your knowledge level, I will give you an extra credit question since you are unable to provide any credible response to my posits thus far...

I have a small question...what happened on easter? I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)
The conditions of the question are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away. Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This question could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

I ask this question in all seriousness, because it astounds me how people can believe in something so important and with such passion, yet not have actually looked at what it is they are celebrating/believing in.
You will find that the trip from A-Z via the gospels will lead you in 4 different paths.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
15-02-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
For some strange reason this one actually thinks there some life left in the same-old same-old garbage (Kalam etc) that has been debunked a million times in a million places. This just gets boring about the 150th time around. The weird thing is these people *actually think* they have something unique to offer. What kind of strange "sheltered" ("evangelical" ??) life must they live to buy into that ?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-02-2015, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 10:22 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 09:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  For some strange reason this one actually thinks there some life left in the same-old same-old garbage (Kalam etc) that has been debunked a million times in a million places. This just gets boring about the 150th time around. The weird thing is these people *actually think* they have something unique to offer. What kind of strange "sheltered" ("evangelical" ??) life must they live to buy into that ?

the last nutt, what was his name? wolfman or some dipshit name, with his "I have 40,000 sources for jesus, you only have 2 for so-and-so thus so-and-so didn't exist and jesus had to be real" Laugh out load I am not sure which is the worse "debater" him or this guy....Consider both came in kicking the door open making wild claims about how they were going to whooop us with knowledge Laugh out load

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
15-02-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 09:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  For some strange reason this one actually thinks there some life left in the same-old same-old garbage (Kalam etc) that has been debunked a million times in a million places. This just gets boring about the 150th time around. The weird thing is these people *actually think* they have something unique to offer. What kind of strange "sheltered" ("evangelical" ??) life must they live to buy into that ?

This from another thread but may apply here:

“While this can certainly not be said for the majority of Christians, some are dangerously stupid.”

I think we’re in the realm of dangerously stupid with this one. Sees someone having a seizure, doesn’t give First Aid, gets on knees and prays.

He might even belong to this group:

“Christians Against Dinosaurs aims to have the titanic lizards removed from classrooms and replaced with pure, Godly, Bibley, stuff — perhaps, like unicorns and dragons."

“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
15-02-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 09:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  For some strange reason this one actually thinks there some life left in the same-old same-old garbage (Kalam etc) that has been debunked a million times in a million places. This just gets boring about the 150th time around.

It's only boring because you focus on the content instead of the presentation.

(15-02-2015 09:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 09:30 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  ...
Now back off you ignorant Brit Ladyboy.

Says a self-confessed Girlyman.

And I'm a relatively well-educated Brit Ladyboy, thanks very much.

Sadcryface

Relative to other Ladyboys maybe.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
15-02-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 08:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 08:37 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

To Call_of_the_Wild.

I would be happy to have a chat about evolution. Though, due to time zone and scheduling differances/difficulties a one on one here on the forums would suit myself better.

Much cheers to all.

I have to vent. With all due respect, I just can't buy the "scheduling" and "I am busy" sob stories. There are 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week....so, 168 hours in an entire week...and all you would need to do is put aside one hour of the 168 total to discuss these same subjects that you are quick to jump on these forums to discuss.

I am not just talking about you personally, but in general. It is as if you guys don't want to be taken out of your element because you are so used to having your colleagues on here cosign everything you say and cheerlead you on, that if you are taken away from that element you are vulnerable.

Case in point. GWG gave the ultimate sob story of them all...military duty, school, kids...he just doesn't have the time for a live debate exchange...yet, he said that he spent 5 hours typing his response to me on here....so he has 5 hours to spend typing a response on here, but you don't have the time to carry the debate to a real time format??

And it just doesn't happen on this forum, this is the third forum that I've been on where I've issued a challenge to anyone in a real time format, whether it is voice format, or instant messaging, and I get the same thing..."I am busy", "I live in Austrailia" "I would rather do it here"....but these are the same people that are spending that same time typing hundreds of posts to me on the forum, and sometimes they are online at the same time that I am online??

Am I in the twilight zone?

I'd like to point to this for a second. I don't like voice chat. A couple of reasons, one of which being that I don't own a computer. *Shocked gasps* I don't. I use the ones in the computer lab when needed, and the rest of the time I post from my phone. So these other types of debates simply aren't viable.

Second, I don't have tons of time. I am a student, working on my credits for professional school. Specifically, an engineering student, and I am putting a great deal of time into that. Right now I have a survey to type the results for, a thermo problem set, a problem set from linear algebra, a paper to write on population dynamics, not to mention I have to design a working model of a retractable bridge. On top of this I work in a research lab as an assistant, doing analysis on concrete and trying to find new methods of construction and testing samples sent to us from around the country to see if their roads are sound. I DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF TIME.

Right now I have a video loaded in another tab about working auto-cad, while doing laundry. The "you clearly have time to do voice chat" is bullshit.

Plus I just got done ranting about the Kalam and am not in a mood to point out, again, the serious problems with it. I do not argue with idiots about the ontological argument. And the last time I presented an argument about evolution to a person they literally crossed their arms, shook their head, and went "Nope, nope, nope." I have other things to do with my time than argue with children in adult bodies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
15-02-2015, 09:58 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 10:02 AM by DLJ.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 09:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...
You couldn't even pass an Apologetics class at Biola.
...

Jeez! Bucky! That's a low blow.

Even as a Johnny foreigner I know that Biola is synonymous with the Madrassas of Pakistan.

He's surely not that bad, is he?

Hobo

(15-02-2015 09:57 AM)natachan Wrote:  ...
Right now I have a survey to type the results for, a thermo problem set, a problem set from linear algebra, a paper to write on population dynamics, not to mention I have to design a working model of a retractable bridge.
...

Don't waste your time with all that sciencey nonsense.

Just put Goddunit at the top of the paper and then pray.

Guaranteed pass.

You know it makes sense.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 10:00 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 09:30 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  But you're doing so well with this format why would you want to change?

"Hey Alexander the Great, you are doing so well in the land that you conquered last month, why would you want more land to conquer?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
COtW, shouldn't you be in church praying and worshiping this god you are so hyped up to defend and prove?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
15-02-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 10:01 AM)Anjele Wrote:  COtW, shouldn't you be in church praying and worshiping this god you are so hyped up to defend and prove?

He probably thinks he's doing important works here educating all these heathens. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: