More undeniable proof for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-02-2015, 09:42 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
ah shit you got me! How could I be so blind?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(18-02-2015 04:01 AM)Typho2k Wrote:  I have brought another undeniable proof
for christianity being real/true.

Proof:

What year is it?

Hmm?

That's right, it's 2015!

It is not 2015 years since Einstein, Nye or deGrasse died, but 2015 since JESUS died.

Checkmate Atheists!

Proof ? I hope this is sarcasm.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2015, 09:12 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(19-02-2015 03:37 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 03:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Sorry, bro, but it's not 2015 AD, but 2015 CE. Cause that BC/AD stuff was just too upsetting for liberal academia. Unfortunately, it's only short steps from BC/AD to AC/DC and a "Highway to Hell".

Checkmate, theists!

Don't you care that it's technically wrong and just made up by monks taking a guess anyway? Or does that as it happened so much mean nothing and it was probably given to them by divine inspiration, but only some of that is truly right.

Yes...made up it is. The year 247 was followed by the year 532. What happened to the other 285 years ?

Don't fret my man, once you've gone to heaven in your mind and I'm dead and my whole generation is wiped out by age; the English speaking world around will be mainly only knowing CE-BCE in their common tongues but seeing that AD/BC stuff as old views that don't actually matter outside of existing on a piece of paper to dictate year.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2015, 09:17 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
Yes...made up it is. The year 247 was followed by the year 532. What happened to the other 285 years ? Which is proof that we really didn't know what the McFly we were doing.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2015, 07:38 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(21-02-2015 09:17 PM)The Drake Wrote:  Yes...made up it is. The year 247 was followed by the year 532. What happened to the other 285 years ? Which is proof that we really didn't know what the McFly we were doing.

What you talking 'bout Willis?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2015, 08:20 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(22-02-2015 07:38 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(21-02-2015 09:17 PM)The Drake Wrote:  Yes...made up it is. The year 247 was followed by the year 532. What happened to the other 285 years ? Which is proof that we really didn't know what the McFly we were doing.

What you talking 'bout Willis?

Wikipedia Wrote:The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus to enumerate the years in his Easter table. His system was to replace the Diocletian era that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians. The last year of the old table, Diocletian 247, was immediately followed by the first year of his table, AD 532. When he devised his table, Julian calendar years were identified by naming the consuls who held office that year—he himself stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior", which was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Wikipedia article 'Anno Domini'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
22-02-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(22-02-2015 08:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-02-2015 07:38 AM)unfogged Wrote:  What you talking 'bout Willis?

Wikipedia Wrote:The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus to enumerate the years in his Easter table. His system was to replace the Diocletian era that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians. The last year of the old table, Diocletian 247, was immediately followed by the first year of his table, AD 532. When he devised his table, Julian calendar years were identified by naming the consuls who held office that year—he himself stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior", which was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Wikipedia article 'Anno Domini'.

Interesting. If I ever heard that I had forgotten it. I knew that the calendar was devised later and applied after the fact to earlier dates but didn't know about Diocletian.

[Image: knowing.jpg]

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2015, 10:14 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 08:22 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  It's supposed to be since he was born, but I see where you're going with this.

Of course, this is curious that the Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus had to be born in or before 4 BCE and the Gospel of Luke said that he had to be born in 6 CE. So, not only did neither gospel that could date his birth pick 0 CE, but they are also both off by no less than ten years from each other.

Funny, I don't remember seeing birth years in either gospel. You are rather saying that those gospels contain facts or details which you or historians have interpreted to have conflicting dates. I call NTS on this.

Wait....

That's...

Wait...

No true scotsman? Really?

You're calling No True Scotsman on that?

That.... that....

UGH.

FrustyFrustyFrustyFrustyFrusty

Okay. What you're doing there is the equivalent of a cop writing a ticket for speeding when the speed limit was never violated and what the cop actually pulled the person over for was switching lanes without signalling.

... in a situation or location where the law doesn't actually require a signal in order to change lanes...

... oh, and it's not actually cop. It's just some private goofball who appointed himself the police and taped lights onto his car.

....

Do us all a favor. More importantly, do yourself and your cause a favor. Before you start throwing around accusations of things like No True Scotsman, even before you try and fail to respond intelligently to accusations of it leveled against yourself, you should actually FIND OUT WHAT IT MEANS. Here, I'll find it for you. While you're at it, you should probably educate yourself on the other fallacies. Also, confirmation bias. You keep responding to our accusations of confirmation bias in a way that suggests you don't even know what the phrase means. While you're at it, look up the other biases as well.

Go on. Take all the time you need. We'll get along well enough in your absence.

... but of course you won't. You're either a troll here for no reason other than to derive some perverse satisfaction by inflaming our rage against your presented willful ignorance, or you are an honestly ignorant twat who can't be bothered to take ten minutes to learn something because that would interfere with the important task of lobbing words around. Your entire track record here has been one of disingenuous argument, cowardice in dodging serious questions rather than answering them squarely, preying upon those that appear to be weak marks, derailing conversations, and generally making a clown of yourself. We might not follow most Biblical passages, but we DO judge the tree by the fruit it bears, because that's good strategy regardless of what book it might appear in. You are one of the fruits produced by Christianity, and the longer you remain here, behaving in this silly, childish, obtuse manner, the more we will judge Christianity as flawed and broken. (Not that we needed more evidence, but it adds to the weight of data.) If you are intent on seeing Christianity represented to others in a positive light, your two best options are to either correct these flaws in your approach... or leave, and thus hide the flawed fruit at the bottom of the barrel and hope that we'll forget your antics and find something more positive to focus on.

Put bluntly: your presence and present behavior is doing your cause more harm than good. You're hurting your own bottom line, and giving us a headache while you do so. Cut it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
23-02-2015, 06:20 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(22-02-2015 10:14 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Funny, I don't remember seeing birth years in either gospel. You are rather saying that those gospels contain facts or details which you or historians have interpreted to have conflicting dates. I call NTS on this.

Wait....

That's...

Wait...

No true scotsman? Really?

You're calling No True Scotsman on that?

That.... that....

UGH.

FrustyFrustyFrustyFrustyFrusty

Okay. What you're doing there is the equivalent of a cop writing a ticket for speeding when the speed limit was never violated and what the cop actually pulled the person over for was switching lanes without signalling.

... in a situation or location where the law doesn't actually require a signal in order to change lanes...

... oh, and it's not actually cop. It's just some private goofball who appointed himself the police and taped lights onto his car.

....

Do us all a favor. More importantly, do yourself and your cause a favor. Before you start throwing around accusations of things like No True Scotsman, even before you try and fail to respond intelligently to accusations of it leveled against yourself, you should actually FIND OUT WHAT IT MEANS. Here, I'll find it for you. While you're at it, you should probably educate yourself on the other fallacies. Also, confirmation bias. You keep responding to our accusations of confirmation bias in a way that suggests you don't even know what the phrase means. While you're at it, look up the other biases as well.

Go on. Take all the time you need. We'll get along well enough in your absence.

... but of course you won't. You're either a troll here for no reason other than to derive some perverse satisfaction by inflaming our rage against your presented willful ignorance, or you are an honestly ignorant twat who can't be bothered to take ten minutes to learn something because that would interfere with the important task of lobbing words around. Your entire track record here has been one of disingenuous argument, cowardice in dodging serious questions rather than answering them squarely, preying upon those that appear to be weak marks, derailing conversations, and generally making a clown of yourself. We might not follow most Biblical passages, but we DO judge the tree by the fruit it bears, because that's good strategy regardless of what book it might appear in. You are one of the fruits produced by Christianity, and the longer you remain here, behaving in this silly, childish, obtuse manner, the more we will judge Christianity as flawed and broken. (Not that we needed more evidence, but it adds to the weight of data.) If you are intent on seeing Christianity represented to others in a positive light, your two best options are to either correct these flaws in your approach... or leave, and thus hide the flawed fruit at the bottom of the barrel and hope that we'll forget your antics and find something more positive to focus on.

Put bluntly: your presence and present behavior is doing your cause more harm than good. You're hurting your own bottom line, and giving us a headache while you do so. Cut it out.

ClapClapClap
BowingBowingBowing

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
23-02-2015, 07:23 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(18-02-2015 04:01 AM)Typho2k Wrote:  I have brought another undeniable proof
for christianity being real/true.

Proof:

What year is it?

Hmm?

That's right, it's 2015!

It is not 2015 years since Einstein, Nye or deGrasse died, but 2015 since JESUS died.

Checkmate Atheists!

Yabut!

I'm flying to Thailand tomorrow.

When I get there, I'll have to put my various timepieces back 1 hour and ...

... 543 years forward.

Jesus? Pah! Johnny come lately.

Buddha FTW!

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: