Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2015, 01:56 AM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(27-06-2015 01:15 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  You think that a story like that of jesus can't be concocted? Think again. You may know about Roswell. 'It' happened in mid-1947. Here we are, 60 some years later believing that the US military actually found a UFO and that they took away bodies of aliens to Area 51. What's the FACTS? They found a bunch of sticks and some foil. I kid you not. That's all. Yet, we now have a conspiracy that people believe. Books have been written. TV and Radio programs have been made. Films have been made . Books are still being written and TV and Radio programs are still being made as are films and the mystery gets bigger and better and more sinister for the telling. And yet, ALL they found was a bunch of sticks and some foil.

How do you know they weren't alien sticks and foil? Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
27-06-2015, 02:26 AM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(27-06-2015 01:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 01:15 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  You think that a story like that of jesus can't be concocted? Think again. You may know about Roswell. 'It' happened in mid-1947. Here we are, 60 some years later believing that the US military actually found a UFO and that they took away bodies of aliens to Area 51. What's the FACTS? They found a bunch of sticks and some foil. I kid you not. That's all. Yet, we now have a conspiracy that people believe. Books have been written. TV and Radio programs have been made. Films have been made . Books are still being written and TV and Radio programs are still being made as are films and the mystery gets bigger and better and more sinister for the telling. And yet, ALL they found was a bunch of sticks and some foil.

How do you know they weren't alien sticks and foil? Laugh out load

So two aliens managed to cross the great cosmos using no more than some sticks and some foil? I supposed that it's possible that the whole lot came apart when they entered the Earth's atmosphere. Yeh, you bottle it and I'll buy it. Hell, it's just about as likely as some sky wizard creating the Earth in 6 days. People believe that so why not a couple of aliens crossing the cosmos using sticks and foil. Perfect.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
27-06-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(27-06-2015 02:26 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Hell, it's just about as likely as some sky wizard creating the Earth in 6 days. People believe that so why not a couple of aliens crossing the cosmos using sticks and foil. Perfect.

Augh, I was being sarcastic, but the more I think about it, you're right. Aliens in a tinfoil kite across the cosmos isn't any crazier than Creationism.

There's nothing sillier about my firmest planting of tongue-in-cheek than the everyday religious beliefs of 50-75 percent of my countrymen.

Dogdamnit, that's depressing!!!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 08:49 AM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  So who watched the event?, the book never mentions if the angels even told them anything about moving the stone, and the way that the verses after flow suggests they were at the tomb when the angel was opening it. Contradiction remains.

Well, I guess both the angels and the women think differently than you, Worom. Apparently, the angels and women were less concerned about the stone, and more concerned about the whereabouts of the risen Messiah.

And the "way that the verses flow"....it could go either way but again, if you are implying a contradiction then all I would need to do is prove that there is a way to reconcile the differences. Come to find out, there is. Now sure, you may disagree to my explanations, but that doesn't mean that my explanations are not possible.

Remember, you have an interpretation of these verses that I don't agree with as well.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Really?, only one out of four authors thought an earthquake was important, or that Mary Magdalene and Mary only told Matthew? If someone is trying to demonstrate the power that went on during the supposed resurrection event leaving out an earthquake in three other accounts is very odd, I know if I was an author I would always mention earthquakes if I was in one. Contradiction remains, as it contradicts the other writings.

Right, you are giving your personal opinion on what you would do as an author...and guess what, not everyone thinks like you, Worom. Not to mention the fact that the earthquake has absolutely no significance whatsoever to the story. Just a flat out non-factor..a non-issue to anything that went on that day.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  No, I would still rationally conclude that they are all describing different events

Well, you are claiming that the accounts contradict. If something contradicts, that mean it is IMPOSSIBLE for the subject matter to be reconciled. You are making it seem as if all Gospels are supposed to be carbon copies, and that just isn't the case when it comes to eye witness testimony. Eyewitness A may not be as detailed as eyewitness B. Author A may not think that x detail is important, but Author B think that x detail is important.

You don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around that concept. That is why we have multiple sources, and when we piece together all four sources, we can get an idea on what took place.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  So now we have even more contradictions, In Matthew the angel appeared, rolled away the stone told Mary and Mary what happened and then they ran off to tell people.

Nonsense. In Matthew 28:5-6, what does it say? It states "The angel said to the women, Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay."

Do you see that? If he is telling them to "come see the place where he lay", isn't it pretty damn safe to assume that the women went inside the tomb? Consider

See, that's is exactly my point. Matthew doesn't state that the women went inside the tomb. But what he does is record the angel telling the women to "come see the place where he lay", which means that he assumes the reader will rationally conclude that the women went inside the tomb, without actually saying "So the women went inside the tomb".

But of course, the super skeptic doesn't think like that. When you are just scanning the Bible looking for things to attack, you may miss out on key details like that.

Now when the women went inside the tomb, that is where they may have saw the man sitting on the right side (Mark 16:5). But Matthew doesn't mention this, does he? No, he doesn't. But so what?? He gave HIS account of what happened, which doesn't contradict in any way the OTHER accounts of what happened.

That is just the super skeptics way of looking for something that just isn't there.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Then in Mark, Mary and Mary enter the tomb and see a man sitting there and ask who rolled away the stone

Bogus. Mark clearly states that while THEY WERE ON THEIR WAY TO THE TOMB, they asked "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb" (v2-3). They had already saw Joseph of Arimathea roll a big ass stone against the entrance (15:46), so of course they wanted to know who would roll the stone away, because they wanted to anoint Jesus' body.

So dude, get your facts straight before you try to attack the Good Book.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Then we get to Luke which also mentions it was early in the morning as did Matthew, and they also enter the tomb and then two men were in the tomb this time.

Which doesn't contradict anything that was said in the other Gospels.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Then we get to John where Mary Magdalene is alone this time and see the open tomb and immediately runs back to get Simon

So, "because John only mentioned Mary, I am concluding that no one was with Mary when she discovered the tomb".

Non-sequitur

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  No, this is not what we would expect from independent accounts for the same event, we might expect some very minor differences, but not full on contradictions.

Full on contradictions Laugh out load

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  And yes you would need four accounts it would be even better if you had hundreds of them that were all very similar by all different authors. If that were the case the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection would be hard to dispute.

I don't know if we have hundreds of accounts of any event in antiquity, all by different authors. If you know of any, enlighten me. Otherwise you are fallaciously committing he good ole taxi cab fallacy by making the standards of proof much more larger when it comes to the Bible than you would do with anything else in antiquity.

Double freakin standard at its best.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Since its not mentioned at this point, that is an assumption without evidence.

But it was mentioned at a later point, so you go back to this point and fill in the blanks. It is called READING COMPREHENSION.

SMH.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is unclear in the books, and does nothing to resolve the contradiction, as the four books are describe differing numbers of people, angels, and men in robes

You are continually making an argument from silence, which is fallacious. Just because one book states that there was an angel outside, doesn't mean that there wasn't two angels inside and vice versa.

That is just faulty reasoning.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Luke 23:55 says the women, so still unclear on who they are all the way until Luke 24:10, and 24:10 mentions other women than just the two Marys, so this is still an issue and contradicts the other three books

But after it was cleared up (to you), that should be the end of the mix up, shouldn't it? But no, time to play superrrr skepticccc.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  And here you make your argument even worse yet again, this is the whole tomb open or closed, and how many angels/men were there thing all over again.
Why would John completely omit the account of the other Mary?

Who knows? He had his reasons, apparently. If he had any inkling that super duper skeptics some 2,000 years later in atheist forums would call into question his penmanship, he probably wouldn't have omitted it.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  that makes no sense if both women were there.

It makes no sense to who? To you? It makes sense to me.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Also the other three accounts never mention that Simon Peter and the other disciple go to the tomb either and then go home afterwards. This contradicts the accounts, the contradiction remains and is now even worse.

So because the book of John gets into more detail than the other three on what occurred when the women told Peter and John about the empty tomb, that makes the book of John contradict the other three?

Fallacious reasoning..moving along.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  I don't have to argue this one, you just proved the point on why second hand accounts are bad at providing evidence, you may have provided first hand accounts from yourself to your mom and your uncle, but when they tell each other what happened that is now a second hand account(hearsay), and as you yourself pointed out it causes a major problem Laughat this is why we need many sources that actually agree with each other and that the writer was preferably a direct witness to the event, physical evidence helps to.

Nonsense. They both have FIRST HAND accounts as to what I told them. There is nothing second hand about either of them telling the other what I told them. That is a first hand account. From their perspective, that is first hand information which went directly from me to them. If they are on the witness stand to testify about what I told them, it wouldn't be HEARSAY, because they got the information directly from the source. ME.

Dude, you may actually be worse than GWOG...and that is saying a lot. Epic, failure.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Did you not read the article, that showed we found the place where he was stabbed as described in the accounts of his stabbing. The similar accounts on his assassination? And we also know he existed because of his own writings.

Ohhh, were they first hand accounts? How do we know that their accounts are valid, and it wasn't just some big Roman conspiracy against Julius Caesar.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Oh yes you do, All five sources describe different events they don't agree with each other on what happened so they do not verify each other.

Nonsense. All five sources describe different details of the same event, and they all verify the main idea, that the women arrived to the tomb and discovered it empty of Jesus' body.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Since they don't agree they are not historical.

All Gospels state that the women went to the tomb and discovered it empty of Jesus' body.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  To use your ceaser example, we have primary and secondary sources, and the physical location that it happened and those sources all are similar to each other and agree with each other. Unlike the gospels

We have primary sources for Jesus' Resurrection. Peter, Paul, and James.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  I had to look up that fallacy, and it turns out it's not even considered a fallacy, even if it was you are applying it falsely.

Did you look it up? Because I looked it up and my computer screen became filled with "taxi cab fallacy" hits. I like this definition right here..

"The “Taxi-Cab Fallacy” is committed when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or worldview in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy."

The Taxi Cab Fallacy became popular because of the likes of PHILOSOPHER William Lane Craig.

And according to the above definition, that is exactly what you are doing.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  You are arguing from personal incredulity on how history works, if a historian wrote about something well after the fact there has to be some other source that very closely or exactly matches what the historian was saying.

Now you are an expert when it comes to history and the historical method huh? With Paul, we have something more BETTER than what you are claiming a historian needs to have. With Paul we have a contemporary to Jesus (despite having never met Jesus), and a contemporary to Jesus' original followers. We have personal testimony from Paul, stating that he also saw the risen Jesus, describing a creed that was given to him by Jesus' original followers, and that he spent 15 days with Peter, and that he also met James, brother of Jesus. So we have Paul's personal testimony, and the testimony given to him by Jesus' followers, which would make the information that Paul received from Peter and James first-hand accounts.

There is no dispute among historians as to whether Paul wrote 1 Corin and Galatians...so either Paul is just flat out lying, or he is flat out telling the truth.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  If you would actually read how the historical method works you would see this.

Here is a small sample

Core principles for determining reliability
1. Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

No relics.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  2. Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...nuscripts/

Here are just a few excerpts from that link..

"As far as Greek manuscripts, over 5800 have been catalogued. The New Testament was translated early on into several other languages as well, such as Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, etc. The total number of these versional witnesses has not been counted yet, but it certainly numbers in the tens of thousands."

"NT scholars face an embarrassment of riches compared to the data the classical Greek and Latin scholars have to contend with. The average classical author’s literary remains number no more than twenty copies. We have more than 1,000 times the manuscript data for the NT than we do for the average Greco-Roman author."

"Not only this, but the extant manuscripts of the average classical author are no earlier than 500 years after the time he wrote. For the NT, we are waiting mere decades for surviving copies. The very best classical author in terms of extant copies is Homer: manuscripts of Homer number less than 2,400, compared to the NT manuscripts that are approximately ten times that amount."

With all of those existing copies of the NT, we can trace its originality almost RIGHT back to its source, with the earliest manuscript going all the way back to the early second century C.E.

So the subject of originality certainly isn't on your side, nor on the side of other Greco-Roman writers.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  3. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

Ooooo this is a good one. Its funny that you mention this, because we've just learned just within the past 20 years or so, that the Gospels, or better yet, the actual narratives that make up the Gospels, all originated from individuals that were living in the geographical location of when the events occurred, and within the TIME that the events occurred.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  4. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

If Paul, as he said he did, WITNESSED the Resurrected Jesus, he is a first hand eyewitness. And if he met with individuals that saw the Resurrected Jesus, that would make this a first-hand source (Peter and James relevant to Paul).

So we have early, first hand sources here.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  5. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

I can build a positive case that Matthew, tax collector, disciple of Jesus wrote the book of Matthew...that Mark, companion of Peter, wrote the book of Mark...that Luke, companion of Paul, wrote the book of Luke..and that John, disciple of Jesus, wrote the book of John.

All books were either written by disciples of Jesus, or friends of the disciples of Jesus...and they are all independent and contain the same message, the Jesus is the risen Messiah, and all salvation comes through him.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  6. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias.
7. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
8. If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Those last three are committing the Genetic Fallacy. You may want to distant yourself from fallacious logic and reasoning.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again that fallacy doesn't exist

According to philosopher William Lane Craig, it does.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  , also see above on How history works, since you seem to like arguing from personal incredulity.

See above at how the case that I am presenting fits those criterion, minus the last three fallacious ones..and the relic one, which is one that may be preferred, but not required.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  I know he was president at that time because the amount of independent sources of evidence is overwhelming, we have physical evidence that the war happened, we have massive amounts of independent sources that say Lincoln existed and what he did.

True, but if I wanted to play the role of super duper skeptic like you are, then every piece of evidence you give me for any of that, I could just argue it down. I mean, that is your approach to the Gospels, isn't it??

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  There a huge numbers of direct witnesses to Lincoln being president and the war itself. We have records of his writings and speeches. And we have an autopsy report from when he was assassinated. That and you know we have a FUCKING picture of him being inaugurated. Source: Library of Congress http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.07636/
[Image: 07636r.jpg]

HAHAHAHAHAH recordings of his speeches? Yeah, and in the Gospels every word that is in red is allegedly the words that Jesus spoke, but do you believe that shit? No, you don't Laugh out load Yet you believe the the "records" of his "writings and speeches".

Laughable.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  *sigh* Here is what the Tacticus actually says

Consequently, to get rid of the report, [u]Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Yeah, thanks for putting the little summary up of what Tacitus said...because after reading it again, I can add one more to the growing list..

So what can we concluded based off that alone?
1. The Origin of the Christian name was from the word Christus
2. There was someone named Christus
3. The Christians were being tortured and killed by Nero
4. Pontius Pilatus did an extreme penalty on someone called Christus
5. The Christian movement originated in Judea

#5 kinda corroborates what the Gospels had been saying Laugh out load

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Furthermore there are some very legitimate criticisms on the authenticity of this section.
Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ but given that its just a giant quote of other books I would consider it valid.

To question the authenticity of Tacitus is bullshit. I mean, what are they saying? That a later Christian came along and interpolated it, like they did with Josephus? Nonsense. Nothing about Tacitus' account is Christian friendly, and he called the whole thing an "abomination", and "evil". Not the kind of shit that a Christian would be trying to forge INTO the material.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Michael Martin notes that the authenticity of this passage of the Annals has also been disputed on the grounds that Tacitus would not have used the word “messiah” in an authentic Roman document.[The Case Against Christianity, By Michael Martin, pg 50-51]

Tacitus didn't use the word "Messiah", that was Jospehus..but we already admit that that was interpolated. Next.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Weaver notes that Tacitus spoke of the persecution of Christians, but no other Christian author wrote of this persecution for a hundred years.[The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950, By Walter P. Weaver, pg 53, pg 57]

Argument from silence. Next.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Hotema notes that this passage was not quoted by any Church father up to the 15th century, although the passage would have been very useful to them in their work;[Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100] and that the passage refers to the Christians in Rome being a multitude, while at that time the Christian congregation in Rome would actually have been very small.[Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100]

More argument from silence. Next.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  If it's not based on faith why is written as a creed instead of as a matter of fact?

It was first handed down as a creed, and written later. That is because the people during that time was an oral generation...not many people could read or write...so creeds, oracles, songs, etc...were orally passed down, and usually the stuff passed down in the form of a creed is easier to remember, because creeds are recited in short and easy to remember excerpts, rather than long sentences and paragraphs...and the creed was more geared to later converts, not to the original disciples....they had already seen the risen Messiah, so why would they need a creed with such details?

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  By that logic, I could hand you a document from around 550 years ago and say most of the people who witnessed the black death are still living.

Then the document wouldn't be accurate, now would it?

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again you are ignoring the core issue that Paul was handed a creed, a profession of faith. If the people that witnessed Jesus were still living why would they write a profession of faith(creed) instead of a document that speaks matter of factly?

Huh? Huh

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  So supposedly 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, and not a single one of those witnesses, knew how to write? Even with the extremely low literacy rate you would think that at least one of them could have wrote it down. Or even better yet why didn't jesus appear to only people who could read and write so they could record it?

Well, if the goal was to get the message out, and Christianity is now the world's largest religion, then I guess the fact that neither of them wrote anything mattered a damn, did it? Second, I am not so sure that neither of them DIDN'T write anything. Maybe they did. Maybe those writings have been lost over time. Shit like that happens, you know? Lets not make it seem as if we have complete and full knowledge of history, because we don't.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  That is not proof, was anyone else with him that could confirm that Jesus appeared?

Then he was lying, right?

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  How do we know he didn't hallucinate the event?

Then so did the others. So all of them were hallucinating, right?

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Or if the event even happened at all?

Maybe it didn't. But believers are maintaining that based on the historical evidence that have been presented to us, we find it more plausible than not that Jesus rose from the dead.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Also you just ran face first into a contradiction in Acts 9:1 - 9:8 Paul was apparently blinded so he couldn't see anything, he just heard a voice claiming to be Jesus

Assuming he was talking about the road to Damascus incident. He could have been talking about a different incident in 1 Corin 15:8,

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Yeah I tried that, guess what I ended up in a loop of apologetics using apologetic sources.

Genetic fallacy. The evidence is what it is, and the truth value of the evidence is independent of where the evidence is coming from. So even if the information came from an unbeliever, the truth value of the information would still be the same.

And you are more than free to use any other nonapologetic source and see whether or not you will wind up with the same results.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  I thought we already got into this a bit?

But I want it to be exclusive...in the boxing ring.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  False cause argument fallacy here, the reason Easter exists as a holiday is because of the involvement of Christians in politics to get the holiday recognized. And without that you are solely basing that case on faith not evidence.

That is mainstream stuff. I celebrate Easter because of the historical evidence I believe is in favor of the Resurrection.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Prove that it was not altered or distorted.

Can you prove that that was Abraham Lincoln in that picture?

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again yet another argument from incredulity. Evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate theories. You can easily have evolution without abiogensis

Yeah, but you can't have evolution, without abiogenesis AND without God.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  , and from a naturalistic view we would say we don't know how life started until we found evidence on how it started if the theory of abiogensis didn't exist. Evolution only describes again how we went from super simple life to the complex life we see now and through history. And will continue to see evolve.

How can you get to the point of life evolving, if you haven't figured out how life began? If there is no God, then life arose naturally by default. But life may not be able to arise naturally...so therefore, evolution is not necessarily true.

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Abiogensis is only meant to describe how life originated, nothing more. Evolution is separate in that it describes how we went from very very simple life to complex life.

I will explain this to you nice and slow, because apparently you people are so high on evolution, that you don't seem to be able to grasp this concept...

1. Evolution depends on preexisting life.
2. If God doesn't exist, life arose naturally
3. The proposition "life arose naturally without God" has not been proven to be true
4. Based on #3, the proposition could actually be false
5. If the proposition is false, then it may not be possible for life to arise naturally
6. If it may not be possible for life to arise naturally, then evolution is possibly false
7. If evolution is possibly false, then evolution is not a brute scientific fact

Now, I could keep going on, but that is enough for now. Now which one of these to you disagree with?

(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Aren't we already debating?

Boxing ring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(27-06-2015 08:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will explain this to you nice and slow, because apparently you people are so high on evolution, that you don't seem to be able to grasp this concept...

1. Evolution depends on preexisting life.

Yes.

Quote:2. If God doesn't exist, life arose naturally

Maybe.

Quote:3. The proposition "life arose naturally without God" has not been proven to be true

No one said it was.

Quote:4. Based on #3, the proposition could actually be false

Sure.

Quote:5. If the proposition is false, then it may not be possible for life to arise naturally

That doesn't actually follow. Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it can't happen.

Quote:6. If it may not be possible for life to arise naturally, then evolution is possibly false

No. It doesn't matter how life started.

Quote:7. If evolution is possibly false, then evolution is not a brute scientific fact

Science isn't about certainty, it's about evidence and explanation.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it is as true as anything in science.

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
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
27-06-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(19-06-2015 11:35 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-06-2015 09:01 AM)ThatAtheistChick Wrote:  I used to hate it when I was having a debate with someone and I couldn't defend my position with anything except the bible tells me so. I'd have this big ole awkward silence which really meant, "I know I do not make a lick of sense right now." Being the only bible thumper in an atheist family, this happened often!

Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with "cus the bible tells me so", I mean after all, it is only the Word of the Living God *caps for emphasis*, of course Big GrinBig Grin
Oh, are you being serious?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Aren't we already debating?
(27-06-2015 08:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Boxing ring.

Very well, I will create the thread.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 01:56 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2015 09:31 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 11:43 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 11:22 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  And Richard Carrier?

He puts forward a convincing case that jesus never had an Earthly existence either.

You ever read Carrier?

In fact, have you ever read ANYTHING?

In fact, CAN YOU READ?

Richard Carrier is another one of those guys in the minority. Carrier and Price are indeed in the minority.

But, that being said, Carrier has already had his ass handed to him by Bill Craig in their debate on the Resurrection. The consensus is that he lost the debate, and even he kinda/sorta admitted to losing.

The minority view used to be that the world wasnt flat....argumentum ad populum isn't the litmus test for truth now is it my misguided friend?

Read life of constantine, he forbid ALL other religions under threat of death, THAT is why it is the prevalent religion to this day..that banishing of all other beliefs put a huge brake to any other thoughts and led to the explosion of christianity. Then thanks to Bishop Augustines work, and forgeries, it grew even further...read a bit...learn. I would endeavor to believe Dr Price knows a shit ton more than you about the Bible, the NT, and jesus. I have forgotten more than you have yet learned, but once again, you bask in the aura of your own ignorance.

1 Corin 15:8? lol. Yes, that is a great story isn't it? He magically appeared before exactly 500 "brethren" at once, then to james, then to all of the apostles, and then to himself, or so the story goes.....so desperate the effort to make his wild claims buyable....obvious since he was working so hard to keep 'the dream alive" since his false prophet was nailed to a piece of wood. Isn't it intruiging that not ONE of those 500 "witnesses" wrote down this amazing event.....Need a refresh on jesus the false prophet?

The Bible claims that Jesus made the following comment:

Matthew 16:28

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus also advised against going to court over someone who steals something and also told people not to store up stocks or reserves for the future. Clearly, he thought the end was very near.

Likewise, Paul advised followers not to marry and that the end time was near. In this scripture he obviously believes that some of the people he is talking to will still be alive at the second coming.

I Thessalonians 4: 16-18

“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.”

The obvious fact is that the second coming was not forthcoming at that time, or even close to being near. The 2000-year delay is a strong piece of evidence that Christianity is a failed religion.

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. Remember that Jesus was a Jew who had no intention to deviate from the Hebrew scriptures:

“Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)”

Jesus’ immediate followers, mostly his 12 disciples, probably did not immediately identify this failure, because after Jesus’ body was likely stolen and concealed, a rumor spread that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. A sense of optimism overcame their grief about his execution and renewed some hope that he was a true messiah. If they had known then that there was to be no return in the near or long-term future, they likely would have abandoned any further activity. Despite this resurgence in their faith, they never agreed with Paul’s concept of Jesus as being divine. Anything written in the Bible to suggest that they did is probably a result of later editing by some of Paul’s followers. Such a belief would have been an exceptional departure from the Jewish faith.

Read, THINK, evolve COTW

"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
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
27-06-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(27-06-2015 10:57 AM)Worom Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)Worom Wrote:  Aren't we already debating?
(27-06-2015 08:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Boxing ring.

Very well, I will create the thread.

Don't go down that rabbit hole, while it is entertaining to watch his steadfast refusal to open his eyes to facts laid before him, while insisting his opinion overrides empirical evidence to the contrary, it is a time suck that has no end..he actually believes mark, matthew, luke and john wrote the synoptic gospels, and that people who wrote of jesus actually knew him, both positions are ludicrous given known facts.

"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
27-06-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(27-06-2015 01:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 10:57 AM)Worom Wrote:  Very well, I will create the thread.

Don't go down that rabbit hole, while it is entertaining to watch his steadfast refusal to open his eyes to facts laid before him, while insisting his opinion overrides empirical evidence to the contrary, it is a time suck that has no end..he actually believes mark, matthew, luke and john wrote the synoptic gospels, and that people who wrote of jesus actually knew him, both positions are ludicrous given known facts.

It is rather entertaining, the only reason I opened the thread he kept asking for is everytime I step out to research his arguments I learn more and more and it makes his arguments and the arguments for religion seem more and more ridiculous than those I had already learned from my deconversion process a few months ago.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Worom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: