Poll: Do you believe in atheism?
No
Yes
Not sure (agnostic)
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Votes - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 12:27 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 12:20 PM)hbl Wrote:  Your theory doesn't pan out because you can quote all the NT except for 11 verses from the early church fathers in the late 1st and 2nd centuries so the NT was written before then. And it wouldn't make much sense to place the writings after the Apostles were martyred around 65 AD so we have their eyewitness testimony recorded in the 27 books of the NT in complete agreement before 65 AD when they were alive. Their message never countered the NT record.

Awesome. I love it!

[Image: 6d5.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 12:27 PM)hbl Wrote:  Your theory doesn't pan out because you can quote all the NT except for 11 verses from the early church fathers in the late 1st and 2nd centuries so the NT was written before then. And it wouldn't make much sense to place the writings after the Apostles were martyred around 65 AD so we have their eyewitness testimony recorded in the 27 books of the NT in complete agreement before 65 AD when they were alive. Their message never countered the NT record.

Cool!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 12:28 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 12:27 PM)hbl Wrote:  Your theory doesn't pan out because you can quote all the NT except for 11 verses from the early church fathers in the late 1st and 2nd centuries so the NT was written before then. And it wouldn't make much sense to place the writings after the Apostles were martyred around 65 AD so we have their eyewitness testimony recorded in the 27 books of the NT in complete agreement before 65 AD when they were alive. Their message never countered the NT record.

Cool!

Replying to your own posts? Your a delusional dumbass.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 12:27 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 12:20 PM)hbl Wrote:  Your theory doesn't pan out because you can quote all the NT except for 11 verses from the early church fathers in the late 1st and 2nd centuries so the NT was written before then. And it wouldn't make much sense to place the writings after the Apostles were martyred around 65 AD so we have their eyewitness testimony recorded in the 27 books of the NT in complete agreement before 65 AD when they were alive. Their message never countered the NT record.

Awesome. I love it!

Again, quoting yourself and replying doesn't make your argument valid, it shows how weak it truly is.

Shoo fly!


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

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Hey people:

I give credibility to someone's ideas with my actions whenever I argue with them.

Reason cannot penetrate a mind that has not yet learned how to reason. It's irrational to attempt rational debate with someone who lacks a capacity for rational debate.

(I suggest giving up?)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like phil.a's post
16-08-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 12:35 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Hey people:

I give credibility to someone's ideas with my actions whenever I argue with them.

Reason cannot penetrate a mind that has not yet learned how to reason. It's irrational to attempt rational debate with someone who lacks a capacity for rational debate.

(I suggest giving up?)

Phil

Nah, its too fun to laugh at all the stupid stuff he pulls out of his ass.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 02:39 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 12:28 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 12:27 PM)hbl Wrote:  Your theory doesn't pan out because you can quote all the NT except for 11 verses from the early church fathers in the late 1st and 2nd centuries so the NT was written before then. And it wouldn't make much sense to place the writings after the Apostles were martyred around 65 AD so we have their eyewitness testimony recorded in the 27 books of the NT in complete agreement before 65 AD when they were alive. Their message never countered the NT record.

Cool!

[Image: giphy.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 03:01 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 12:50 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 12:35 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Hey people:

I give credibility to someone's ideas with my actions whenever I argue with them.

Reason cannot penetrate a mind that has not yet learned how to reason. It's irrational to attempt rational debate with someone who lacks a capacity for rational debate.

(I suggest giving up?)

Phil

Nah, its too fun to laugh at all the stupid stuff he pulls out of his ass.

This, and outside of the entertainment value, it is good for new people to see and read the amount of evidence that goes against his delusions. Excellent training in my humble opinion Smartass

"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
16-08-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 11:52 AM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 11:04 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  The difference between Jesus and the others you mentioned, Julius Ceasar, Tiberius, Plato and Aristotle, is that they didn't claim to walk on water or be the son of god so it's not too important even if they didn't exist. If a person claims to be the son of god you'd better have some damn good first hand evidence to back it up with.... which you don't have. You just have claims written in a book by non-eyewitness accounts and refuse to study anything outside of what you've been indoctrinated into.

Studying other words by other individuals outside the Bible doesn't change what we know from the Bible.

The problem with your approach is most historians believe these other individuals existed such as Aristotle and Plato and that they were important, and the sources for Jesus are even more plentiful than that which is an even higher standard of evidence.

The Bible is composed of 27 books written by 8 individuals: Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude. These were the people in the know. The writers of the books identify themselves as the authors as well as eyewitnesses of Jesus resurrected. So you can see God holds to the highest standard of evidence in these 27 books.

You might to consider asking yourself what you would think would be better evidence? I can't think of better evidence than the evidence we have of their experiences of 40 authors over 1500 years in 66 books - the complete word of God.

The burden remains on you to show 'with some evidence' someone else wrote these books other than the people who knew Jesus personally, were eyewitnesses or were very close to the eyewitnesses.

What's interesting is even if they didn't write these books, this information most certainly came from the eyewitnesses themselves because, for example, Polycarp said he was a student of John and Clement of Rome knew Peter personally.

"Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude. These were the people in the know." Laughat

Yeah problem is buddy, they didn't write the books, look up the term pseudepigrapha.

sigh, okay, I will take you to school once more...

Acts and luke had the same authors. NO, none of the authors of the gospels knew jesus.

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I made these points before.

Paul also NEVER met jesus. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay. Fact. I have a degree in theology for a reason....to be able to dismantle the myth.

Resource:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.


[Image: bjd9x1.jpg]

"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
16-08-2014, 05:49 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 03:10 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 11:52 AM)hbl Wrote:  Studying other words by other individuals outside the Bible doesn't change what we know from the Bible.

The problem with your approach is most historians believe these other individuals existed such as Aristotle and Plato and that they were important, and the sources for Jesus are even more plentiful than that which is an even higher standard of evidence.

The Bible is composed of 27 books written by 8 individuals: Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude. These were the people in the know. The writers of the books identify themselves as the authors as well as eyewitnesses of Jesus resurrected. So you can see God holds to the highest standard of evidence in these 27 books.

You might to consider asking yourself what you would think would be better evidence? I can't think of better evidence than the evidence we have of their experiences of 40 authors over 1500 years in 66 books - the complete word of God.

The burden remains on you to show 'with some evidence' someone else wrote these books other than the people who knew Jesus personally, were eyewitnesses or were very close to the eyewitnesses.

What's interesting is even if they didn't write these books, this information most certainly came from the eyewitnesses themselves because, for example, Polycarp said he was a student of John and Clement of Rome knew Peter personally.

"Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude. These were the people in the know." Laughat

Yeah problem is buddy, they didn't write the books, look up the term pseudepigrapha.

sigh, okay, I will take you to school once more...

Acts and luke had the same authors. NO, none of the authors of the gospels knew jesus.

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I made these points before.

Paul also NEVER met jesus. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay. Fact. I have a degree in theology for a reason....to be able to dismantle the myth.

Resource:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.


[Image: bjd9x1.jpg]

Hopeless Brain Lapse just can't process any of that information Goodwithout. Somewhere I read that religious indoctrination changes the brain to not accept factual information because the brain is conditioned to only accept things that provide comfort. So it seems, religious people are addicted to the placebo effect of religious comfort and to hell with facts and evidence.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: