Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 04:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Claiming to have been told a story by eyewitnesses is not the same thing as being an eyewitness.

Luke 1:1-3

"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

He is saying the content of his material originated from THOSE WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD.
I know a guy who knows a guy who has a cousin who knows a woman who heard from her brother's girlfriend's mother (who's a mortician) that some crazy cult leader was poisoned and was sent to the morgue she worked at. The next day he woke up in the morgue, told her not be frightened, and then floated up through the ceiling.

You can trust me, she was a first hand eyewitness.

(30-03-2015 08:47 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  IT'S THE HOLY GHOST oooOOOOOOOOOOooooooo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Russ's post
31-03-2015, 04:37 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Do you just not fucking read the posts you're responding to? Grasshopper's contention is clearly and unambiguously that the claim that the story you have is from eyewitnesses, is not the same thing as being an eyewitness. Why the fuck is your response "yeah, but he claims to have gotten the story from eyewitnesses!"

First off, if you had actually read what I originally said, I said "The GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BY DISCIPLES, OR FRIENDS OF THE DISCIPLES".

Who was Luke? He was a FRIEND of Paul, who was a friend of Peter and James..and Paul lived DURING THE TIME of Jesus.

Who was Mark? He was a FRIEND OF Peter, who was a DISCIPLE of Jesus.

This is a classic example of "when a "gotcha" moment goes bad". Third, my claim is that even though the book wasn't written by a direct eyewitness, the AUTHOR is claiming that it ORIGINATED from eyewitnesses....and this is not me implying it, this is what the FUCK he said...now as I said, you can say that he is lying, or whatever..I really don't give a damn...but that is what the text states.

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  I mean, it's breathtaking that you didn't get the issue, from a sentence that is literally nothing but an explanation of that issue, but if we boil down your actual claim we get this: a guy whose name and history you don't know wrote a story in a book, and said that the people that told him that story, whom you also don't know because Mister Anonymous Gospel Author doesn't provide citations, claimed to be eyewitnesses. And "a friend of a friend told me," from long dead people who you know nothing about, is sufficient for you to believe the words in that book?

First off, nobody knows who wrote anything in antiquity, regardless of whether any given text is cited or not. Second, if the Gospel authors signed off on each book, all it would take is a super-duper critic like you and others on here to move the goalpost and say "Well, just because the books SAY they wrote it, how do we know that they ACTUALLY WROTE IT...anyone could have placed their names in the text", or some bullshit like that...it never fails, but hey, that is all part of the game.

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Or the supposed eyewitnesses were lying or exaggerating

The lying theory doesn't explain the empty tomb, nor does it explain the origin of Paul and James' beliefs...they were skeptics of Jesus and Paul was a persecutor of the early church, so he would have loved nothing more to squash the Christian movement...and that would be hard to do if he took part in a lying plot about a damn Resurrection.

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  or misremembering.

They claimed that a man rose from the dead, and saw him for over the course of a month or so..how the hell can that be considered "misremembering".

Talking out of your ass again, Esq?

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Or that they mistook what they saw for something else.

Like what?

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Or the entire book is a fiction sold as the work of some guy we have no reason to think wrote the book... I know false dichotomies are easier on your tiny little mind, but there are more than two options here.

You can play that same game with any book in antiquity. When it comes to the Bible, skepticism is raised to an all time high Laugh out load

Ok, so the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence....I think George Washington forged all of the signatures of those involved. And King Tut never existed, it was all used to create attention so that Howard Carter could fund his Egyption expedition..all of the gold that was found in Tut's tomb was shipped from Ethiopia. Hannibal never rode war elephants, that was a story created by Hannibal because he met an Indian woman and wanted to impress her, so he made up a story about war elephants because she knew the woman was a Hindu, and this would impress her because of her worship of the Hindu God Ganesh.

Sure, lets play the super-duper skeptic role for any and everything!!!

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Um, given that the claims contain numerous things that are impossible

Sooo, it isn't possible for a man to rise from the dead, but it is possible for inanimate matter to come to life and begin talking and thinking?

Mannnn please Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  and no evidence to consider the claims truthful

That is your opinion. Of course, I think otherwise.

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  we do have reason to think them false.

Which is?

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Besides the blatant shifting of the burden of proof, of course; we don't just accept a claim until its proven false.

That is your standard, not mines.

(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Seriously? "If this thing is true, then it's a true thing!" Rolleyes

Ummmmm if something is true, then it IS true.

I must be in the twilight zone
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2015, 04:38 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2015 04:43 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 04:27 PM)Russ Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 04:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Luke 1:1-3

"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

He is saying the content of his material originated from THOSE WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD.
I know a guy who knows a guy who has a cousin who knows a woman who heard from her brother's girlfriend's mother (who's a mortician) that some crazy cult leader was poisoned and was sent to the morgue she worked at. The next day he woke up in the morgue, told her not be frightened, and then floated up through the ceiling.

You can trust me, she was a first hand eyewitness.

....and Wail of the Child misses the fact that allegedly "they were handed down"...ever play the telephone game? people love to exaggerate....and regardless, the very fact it says it in the bible is discredit enough, since the bible is made up of fiction, fantasy and forgery.

"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
31-03-2015, 04:46 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 04:37 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The lying theory doesn't explain the empty tomb, ...

I've got a theory that does explain it, though. You see, Jesus told his disciples that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood -- it's right there in the Gospel of John -- and he was an "eyewitness", right? So after his death, that's exactly what they fucking did -- they ate him. No body = empty tomb. Voila!

This is my own theory, but you can use it if you want -- free of charge...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2015, 05:01 PM
RE: Question about flood
So now we have it from his own pen: CotW's standard of evidence is that if a claim is made in a very old book (written centuries after the supposed events) then it must be true unless it can be proven to be false, but you cannot prove it false to his satisfaction because he will accept no "proof" other than the very old book itself. A hundred million fossils showing a clear pattern is nothing but "voodoo" to him.

From CotW: "The lying theory doesn't explain the empty tomb."

Sure it does: It explains that there was no empty tomb because they lied about it. And then they wrote the lie into their book.

In fact there probably was no tomb at all because they lied about burying him.

What's really curious, is that faced with clear contradictions within the Bible, some folks insist on maintaining that every word of it is true. This in spite of the fact that before Martin Luther and his 95 theses, NOBODY ever thought to claim the Bible was literal. Then that nut job Luther decided that not only was the Bible literally true, but he decided that the Bible is the only thing that's ever true. That kind of puts CotW into perspective: The Bible is literal and always true, and nothing is true unless it's in the Bible.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like daniel1948's post
31-03-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 04:46 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 04:37 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The lying theory doesn't explain the empty tomb, ...

I've got a theory that does explain it, though. You see, Jesus told his disciples that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood -- it's right there in the Gospel of John -- and he was an "eyewitness", right? So after his death, that's exactly what they fucking did -- they ate him. No body = empty tomb. Voila!
This calls for a schism! We can call it Trogoism.

(30-03-2015 08:47 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  IT'S THE HOLY GHOST oooOOOOOOOOOOooooooo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Russ's post
31-03-2015, 05:31 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 04:37 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  First off, if you had actually read what I originally said, I said "The GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BY DISCIPLES, OR FRIENDS OF THE DISCIPLES".

Yup, and you have absolutely no evidence to back up that claim. In fact, church history contradicts it; you do know that the epigraphs for those books were added much later, by people in no position to know, based on church tradition and not fact, right?

Quote:Who was Luke? He was a FRIEND of Paul, who was a friend of Peter and James..and Paul lived DURING THE TIME of Jesus.

Or in other words, "a friend of a friend told me," but for people you don't even know. Why are you disagreeing with me, and then saying the exact things I just got through saying? Confused

Quote:This is a classic example of "when a "gotcha" moment goes bad". Third, my claim is that even though the book wasn't written by a direct eyewitness, the AUTHOR is claiming that it ORIGINATED from eyewitnesses....and this is not me implying it, this is what the FUCK he said...now as I said, you can say that he is lying, or whatever..I really don't give a damn...but that is what the text states.

Sure, but the point that was being made to you is that the claim of being based on eyewitness testimony is not the same thing as eyewitness testimony. You know why that chinese whispers game functions? Because when people tell other people stories, the details change.

Quote:First off, nobody knows who wrote anything in antiquity, regardless of whether any given text is cited or not.

But in the case of the gospels we know that the claim that they were written by the disciples was added in much later, by people not in any position to know that, after the epigraphs were appended based on church tradition, to books that were originally anonymous. It's one thing to state that nobody knows, it's quite another to take as truth epigraphs that we know cannot be true.

Quote: Second, if the Gospel authors signed off on each book, all it would take is a super-duper critic like you and others on here to move the goalpost and say "Well, just because the books SAY they wrote it, how do we know that they ACTUALLY WROTE IT...anyone could have placed their names in the text", or some bullshit like that...it never fails, but hey, that is all part of the game.

... But we literally, literally, super duper know that nobody is in any position to know who wrote the gospels, including the people who originally claimed it was the disciples. This is a case where we really do know that a collection of assorted church leaders placed the names on the text, so the excuse you're making to try and mock us is what we can confirm to have happened. You just made the factually accurate answer against your claim for me.

Quote:The lying theory doesn't explain the empty tomb,

Leaving aside that "the claim of an empty tomb was a lie" adequately fits within the claim that lies were involved, do I really need to explain an empty tomb? How is it that you think that a room containing no evidence of Jesus, is somehow evidence of Jesus?

Quote: nor does it explain the origin of Paul and James' beliefs...they were skeptics of Jesus and Paul was a persecutor of the early church, so he would have loved nothing more to squash the Christian movement...and that would be hard to do if he took part in a lying plot about a damn Resurrection.

Unless the writer concocted the entire story out of wholecloth, or exaggerated it.

Quote:They claimed that a man rose from the dead, and saw him for over the course of a month or so..how the hell can that be considered "misremembering".

You can talk to people living today who remember being abducted by aliens, but you don't necessarily believe those claims, right? So on the one hand, you can accept an extraordinary claim being the product of a flaw in memory, but on the other, the idea that another extraordinary claim might be a flaw of memory totally blows your mind. At least try to have a consistent position, would you?

Quote:Like what?

Some guy who looked like Jesus, or they misdiagnosed that he was dead... both of which are explanations much more reasonable than the one where magic happens.

Quote:You can play that same game with any book in antiquity. When it comes to the Bible, skepticism is raised to an all time high Laugh out load

Yes, because the bible asks us to believe that magic happened, whereas most books from antiquity do not, and the ones that do, have those specific claims ignored. You're asking for a special exemption from that, for no reason other than that you can scoff at disagreement really hard.

Quote:Ok, so the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence....I think George Washington forged all of the signatures of those involved. And King Tut never existed, it was all used to create attention so that Howard Carter could fund his Egyption expedition..all of the gold that was found in Tut's tomb was shipped from Ethiopia. Hannibal never rode war elephants, that was a story created by Hannibal because he met an Indian woman and wanted to impress her, so he made up a story about war elephants because she knew the woman was a Hindu, and this would impress her because of her worship of the Hindu God Ganesh.

Sure, lets play the super-duper skeptic role for any and everything!!!

If any of those other works contained magic claims you might have a point. But they don't, and ordinary claims require less evidence than extraordinary ones.

Quote:Sooo, it isn't possible for a man to rise from the dead, but it is possible for inanimate matter to come to life and begin talking and thinking?

Mannnn please Laugh out load

You're really enamored with the tu coque fallacy, I see, but regardless of how dismissive you are, we have plenty of evidence for evolution, and none for resurrections. All this theatricality from you is just a cover for your complete lack of justification.

Quote:That is your opinion. Of course, I think otherwise.

Nope, sorry. Some things aren't all just opinion, and you've certainly presented no evidence.

Quote:Which is?

Anonymous authors claiming magic shit through second hand accounts. What more do you want?

Quote:That is your standard, not mines.

So you accept claims until they're proven false? Okay, cool: I went back in time and saw that no god created the universe. It all happened naturally.

Conversation over, I guess?

Quote:
(31-03-2015 02:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Seriously? "If this thing is true, then it's a true thing!" Rolleyes

Ummmmm if something is true, then it IS true.

I must be in the twilight zone

Yes, but just saying "if I'm right, then you're wrong!" is not an argument for why you're right, it's a tautology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Esquilax's post
31-03-2015, 05:36 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 05:01 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  So now we have it from his own pen: CotW's standard of evidence is that if a claim is made in a very old book (written centuries after the supposed events) then it must be true unless it can be proven to be false, but you cannot prove it false to his satisfaction because he will accept no "proof" other than the very old book itself. A hundred million fossils showing a clear pattern is nothing but "voodoo" to him.

From CotW: "The lying theory doesn't explain the empty tomb."

Sure it does: It explains that there was no empty tomb because they lied about it. And then they wrote the lie into their book.

In fact there probably was no tomb at all because they lied about burying him.

What's really curious, is that faced with clear contradictions within the Bible, some folks insist on maintaining that every word of it is true. This in spite of the fact that before Martin Luther and his 95 theses, NOBODY ever thought to claim the Bible was literal. Then that nut job Luther decided that not only was the Bible literally true, but he decided that the Bible is the only thing that's ever true. That kind of puts CotW into perspective: The Bible is literal and always true, and nothing is true unless it's in the Bible.

Beat me to the punch! But then again, i think CoTW revealed just how inadequate his reasoning is a few threads back. The brain=cartilage was kind of a dead giveaway.

CoTW: Just a suggestion. Arrogance and condescension actually makes your argument look more irrational.


If you don't want a sarcastic answer, don't ask stupid questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ivaneus's post
31-03-2015, 06:51 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 04:27 PM)Russ Wrote:  I know a guy who knows a guy who has a cousin who knows a woman who heard from her brother's girlfriend's mother (who's a mortician) that some crazy cult leader was poisoned and was sent to the morgue she worked at. The next day he woke up in the morgue, told her not be frightened, and then floated up through the ceiling.

You can trust me, she was a first hand eyewitness.


Bible = accounts that actually happened.

Above post = some made up shit that was pulled out of the ass of an atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: Question about flood
(31-03-2015 06:51 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 04:27 PM)Russ Wrote:  I know a guy who knows a guy who has a cousin who knows a woman who heard from her brother's girlfriend's mother (who's a mortician) that some crazy cult leader was poisoned and was sent to the morgue she worked at. The next day he woke up in the morgue, told her not be frightened, and then floated up through the ceiling.

You can trust me, she was a first hand eyewitness.


Bible = accounts that actually happened.

Above post = some made up shit that was pulled out of the ass of an atheist.

Bible = some made up shit that was pulled out of the ass of various people over the last few thousand years.

My post = some made up shit that was pulled out of the ass of an atheist.

(30-03-2015 08:47 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  IT'S THE HOLY GHOST oooOOOOOOOOOOooooooo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Russ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: